At 07:41 PM 08/08/2000 -0400, Bertvan wrote:
>I can't resist passing on an article from the Wall Street Journal, which
>states my views on the controversy perfectly.
>
>Bertvan
>
>The Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, August 8, 2000
The Wall Street Journal has really slid downhill since I used to read it
regularly.
>The New Fundamentalism
>By Gregg Easterbrook
<snipage>
> What Kansas's board did do was suggest schools teach only part of
>natural selection theory. It advised that children be taught that living
>things evolve in response to changes in their environments. The evidence on
>this point, as Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould has noted, is as strong as the
>evidence that Earth orbits the sun. But the board advised against teaching
>that life began through a totally natural, undirected process. The board
>was wrong to try to edit contemporary biology in this way. Even if a wholly
>spontaneous origin of life turns out to be incorrect, it is today's
>mainstream science and children need to learn it.
Bertvan, you have stated repeatedly in almost every e-mail you have posted
to this list that you disagree (don't find the evidence compelling) with
the above paragraph. And the Kansas board "attempted to edit contemporary
biology this way" because they think (wrongly) that it conflicts with Genesis.
> More objectionable, perhaps, was the board's advice against teaching Big
>Bang theory. Big Bang theory enjoys almost unanimous support among
>cosmologists and even has moderate theological backing, for instance from
>the Vatican Observatory. This theory may or may not stand the test of
>time all previous theories of the origin of the cosmos are now thought
>wrong, so don't hold your breath for the Big Bang but kids cannot
>understand astronomy without knowing the ideas behind it.
True, and the Kansas Board attempted to suppress it solely because it was
evidence of an ancient universe--they are young-earth creationists, not
fans of ID except as convenient.
> Yet though the Kansas board was wrong on some points, those who
>denounced it skipped the valid substance behind its thinking. There is a
>lively scientific debate these days on the absence of explanations for the
>origin of life. Evolutionary theory is commonly misunderstood to explain
>the origin of life; actually, it applies only to how organisms that already
>exist respond to their environments.
remember this statement. The writer *knows* that evolution and abiogenesis
are not the same thing.
>All theories on origins, most recently
>the "RNA world" hypothesis (that life began with a chemical relative of
>DNA), are extremely conjectural. Darwin himself said he had no clue how
>life began, and considered creation an impenetrable mystery.
what a surprise. Genes were rediscovered 40 years after he died. DNA was
discovered nearly 100 years after he died.
> Inability to explain how life began hardly disproves natural selection.
>The question is simply outside the theory's perimeter. But because today's
>dogma assumes science can already explain everything, most of those who
>denounced the Kansas board didn't seem to know that the origin of life and
>how life evolves are two entirely separate issues.
and here again, the writer knows that abiogenesis and evolution are not the
same thing and that abiogenesis is a hypothesis, not a theory. Science
assumes no such thing, by the way. It is widely accepted that abiogenesis
may never yield its secrets to us. Life has destroyed evidence of it's
earliest history.
> One small bit of editing by the Kansas board has been overlooked. The
>board changed the definition of science from "the search for natural
>explanations" the wording preferred by the National Academy of
>Sciences to the search for logical explanations. When it comes to
>intellectual rigidity, there's little difference between the national
>academy declaring that only natural forces may be considered, and the
>church declaring that only divine explanations may be considered. The quest
>for logical explanations for the world is a much richer and more engaging
>goal.
the search for logical explanations is *philosophy* the search for natural
explanations is *science*. Logic floats on premises. Something that seems
perfectly logical may not be the case. (All men must die. Socrates is a
woman. Therefore Socrates will never die.)
> These concerns intersect at the evolving new theory of "intelligent
>design."
a 200 years young theory!
>Unlike creationism, intelligentdesign theory acknowledges that the
>universe is immensely old and that all living things are descended from
>earlier forms. But the theory goes on to contend that organic biology is so
>phenomenally complex that it is illogical to assume that life created
>itself. There must have been some force providing guidance.
which is a religious statement. Science doesn't deal with religious
statements.
> Intelligent design is a sophisticated theory now being argued out in the
>nation's top universities.
it's being laughed at the nation's top universities. It is religion and as
a science is empty of content. There's nothing to argue. You either believe
it looks like somebody designed it or you don't.
>And though this idea assumes existence must have
>some higher component, it is not religious doctrine under the 1986 Supreme
>Court definition.
This person needs to check his facts. The Supreme Court has already
specifically mentioned intelligent design.
>Intelligentdesign thinking does not propound any specific
>faith or even say that the higher power is divine. It simply holds that
>there must be an unseen intellect imbedded in the cosmos.
ID is a religious statement. It can't be proved or disproved--nothing new
can be learned from it--it can only be believed or not.
> The intelligent design theory may or may not be correct, but it's a
>rich, absorbing hypothesis the sort of thing that is fascinating to
>debate, and might get students excited about biology class to boot. But
>most kids won't know the idea unless they are taught it, and in the
>aftermath of the Kansas votes, proevolution dogma continues to suggest that
>any alternative to natural selection must be kept quiet.
remember those paragraphs above? the ones where he said that it was
*abiogenesis* that intelligent design was concerned with--the *origin* of
life. He said that natural selection was a done deal--a truth as heavily
confirmed as the earth orbiting the sun--but here we get a switcharoo and
slip into the familiar creationist rhetoric.
> But then, just as in 1925 opposition to natural selection was not really
>about the theory but about sustaining a status quo in which people were not
>supposed to question clergy, so today's evolutionary fundamentalism is not
>so much about the theory but about sustaining a new status quo in which
>people are not supposed to question scientists. Yet this discourages
>students from engaging in one of the most fascinating if not the most
>fascinating of questions: Why are we here?
and why oh why can't this religious discussion go on in church rather than
science class? Only religion can answer "why are we here" questions.
Science can only answer the "what and how" questions. What is there for the
students to discuss? Religionist: "it looks designed to me" Scientist: "how
do you test for designedness? how do you tell when something is *not*
designed?"
> The obvious solution is to teach the controversy. Present students with
>the arguments for and against natural and supernatural explanations of
>life, and then let them enter into this engaging, fertile debate. Yet many
>school systems are steering away from teaching intelligent design,
>believing it to be an impermissible idea under the Supreme Court ruling.
yes, they actually *read* the Supreme Court ruling and can recognize
religion when they see it. The students can learn the "controversy" some
where else. Perhaps in classes on the history of the creationist movement
in this century. Now *that* would enlighten them!
>Editorials and columnists prefer not to mention the new theory, hoping to
>tar all non-Darwinian ideas as mere creationism. This isn't freedom of
>thought it's the reverse. Where is the new Scopes who will expose the new
>dogma as being just as bad as the old?
so the evilutionists are saying "let's see how it actually works" and the
creationists are saying "stop trying to figure out how it works, some god
did it." What is new here?
Susan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 08 2000 - 22:14:44 EDT