>2. Arguments based upon analogy between biological organisms and man-made
>(designed) objects are PHILOSOPHICAL, and should not be included in the
>science curriculum. (It is possible for science classes to occasionally
>tackle philosophical arguments, but they need to be clearly labeled as
>such and several competing points of view should be included.) In the
>same way, arguments for un-directed evolution based upon examples of "bad
>design" (e.g. the blind spot) are also philosophical, and should not be
>included in the science curriculum.
>
>3. Finally, arguments about the presumed philosophical bias of scientists
>are themselves philosophical. They should not be part of the science
>curriculum. (Though they could be part of a "philosophical" unit with
>several viewpoints included.)
I see no reason for keeping philosophical arguments out of the science
curriculum, and many for including them. However, philosophy should be
clearly labelled as philosophy. I would go so far as to say that I'd favor
requiring all degree candidates in science fields to take a sequence of
courses in philosophy of science.
Bill Hamilton | Chassis & Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)