Re: an educational/legislative concern in WA -Forwarded

Arthur V. Chadwick (chadwicka@swac.edu)
Wed, 28 Jan 1998 15:10:25 -0800

Re:
>
> "A MESSAGE FROM THE WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLATURE
>
> This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial
> theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for
> the origin of living things, such as plants, animals, and
> humans.
> No one was present when life first appeared on earth.
> Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be
> considered as theory, not fact.
> The word "evolution" may refer to many types of change.
> Evolution describes changes that occur within a species.
> (White moths, for example, may "evolve" into gray moths.) This
> process is microevolution, which can be observed and described
> as fact. Evolution may also refer to the change of one living
> thing to another, such as reptiles into birds. This process,
> called macroevolution, has never been observed and should be
> considered a theory. Evolution also refers to the unproven
> belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of
> living things.
> There are many unanswered questions about the origin of
> life which are not mentioned in your textbook, including:
> - Why did the major groups of animals suddenly appear in the
> fossil record (known as the "Cambrian Explosion")?
> - Why have no new major groups of living things appeared in
> the fossil record for a long time?
> - Why do major groups of plants and animals have no
> transitional forms in the fossil record?
> - How did you and all living things come to possess such a
> complete and complex set of "Instructions" for building a
> living body?
> Study hard and keep an open mind. Someday, you may
> contribute to the theories of how living things appeared on
> earth."

In my opinion, the general tenor of this message accurately characterizes
the present state of affairs. I think this is a good way to encourage open
minded search for truth that ought to characterize our pursuit of knowledge
in all areas, particularly in science. To remove such a qualification is
to continue to allow our children to be exposed to the dogma of naturalism
with no alternative even suggested. Warning of this situation is a minimal
response, but I think, one that ought to be encouraged.
Art
http://chadwicka.swau.edu