>http://www.eppc.org/library/conversations/04-evolutioncurriculum.html
Richard:
>Reading about the goals of the ID movement is important, and I would
>certainly encourage anyone to do so, but being careful to read between the
>lines. However, the mythical "lurkers" (for whose enlightenment Bertvan and
>Stephen Jones are so concerned) will find nothing on that web page to
>support the scientific claims of ID.
Bertvan:
I assume Darwinists state their position honestly and sincerely, and I don't
try to "read between the lines" looking for ulterior motives. As an advocate
of ID, I claim no monopoly on either truth or sincerity.
Richard:
>The seminar reported on that page seems like a cosy little discussion
>between people who are largely in agreement. Most of them appear to be
>journalists, with no mention of them having any scientific expertise. And
>most of them seem to take it for granted that there is some scientific merit
>in the ID arguments. In this respect, it seems that the ID propaganda is
>working.
Bertvan:
How does one distinguish between "propaganda" and honest statement of one's
position?
Richard:
>I've just been debating in talk.origins with yet another two ID proponents
>who were completely close to reasoned argument. This seems to be a
>characteristic of most ID proponents, which seems like another good reason
>(if another one were needed) for not teaching ID in schools. The ID
>proponents' demand for an "open" discussion in schools rings rather hollow
>to those of us who've seen how closed-minded they themselves are.
>Teaching their kind of irrationality as science would be disastrous for
>science education. It would undermine the respect of students for science
>and for their teachers, once they saw through the ID smokescreen.
Hi Richard,
When two people understand each others position, and still disagree, how do
you determine which is "closed minded"? If each sees the same evidence and
comes to different conclusions, how do you determine which have reached their
conclusions "irrationally"? (Or as some might put it, which is a liar?) I
have the impression you believe the world would be a better place if everyone
agreed on all the important questions, if controversy didn't exist.
Let's pretend for a moment that public opinion is an evolving organism. If
an physical organism were already perfect, no growth or "evolution" could
take place. Likewise if public opinion reflected "truth" it would also
remain static. (dead!) In biological evolution, the genius of the "design"
might well be its universal imperfection. The healthy development of wisdom
and insight also requires a conflict of ideas. Think how many of the
beliefs to which you are most committed arose in disagreement with someone
else's idea! Johnson and other supporters of ID have stated repeatedly that
they have no desire to suppress any of the orthodox position on evolution.
ID supporters believe all the evidence should be presented for Darwinism
(random mutation and natural selection ), materialism, atheism, philosophical
naturalism (and everything else with which they disagree) - to school
children and everyone else. If this ever changes, if ID ever suggests only
their version of "truth" be taught in schools, it will have become a dogma
and outlived its usefulness. Sometimes I get the idea that some of you have
no objection to "design", you just think it shouldn't be considered part of
science. There is no reason for you to consider it a part of your science.
Do you feel justified in defining science for everyone else?
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 10 2000 - 12:01:55 EDT