Reflectorites
On Thu, 3 Feb 2000 21:02:19 -0600 (CST), Susan B wrote:
[...]
>>SB>LET'S TEACH CREATIONISM
>>>by Bart Kosko
>>>
>>>Fundamentalist Christians are correct: creationism should be taught in the
>>>schools. But they won't like the results.
>SJ>I would of course be happy if *all* forms of "creationism" were taught in
>>schools, ie. Progressive and Mediate Creation, as well as Young-Earth
>>Creation.
SB>when examined in the light of the scientific method, do you really think it
>would help your case?
As long as "the scientific method" is not artificially restricted by being
just another name for applied materlialist-naturalist philosophy, yes, for
"Mediate Creation".
The others, "Progressive Creation", and "Young-Earth Creation" are not my
"case". But I believe that "Progressive Creation" might survive being
"examined in the light of the scientific method" but not "Young-Earth
Creation".
>SJ>And also part of the teaching of "creationism" would be bringing out the
>>problems and hidden metaphysical assumptions of evolution.
SB>the "hidden" metaphysical assumption is that science cannot address
>religious questions and does not. Even if every scientist on the planet
>(even the non-Christian ones) believed and knew for certain that everything
>were designed personally by the hands of God Almighty, science still could
>not deal with religious questions. It's asking it to do something it simply
>cannot do.
This is simply false. Science does in fact "address religious questions".
Many (if not most) Biology textbooks start off with an attack on the
Judeo-Christian doctrine of creation, which is a "religious question".
For example, as previously mentioned, I have recently enrolled for a
Bachelor of Science (Biology) degree at one of our universities. The main
textbook in the actually has an interview with Dawkins in which he answers
the question about the title of his book, "The Blind Watchmaker", by
arguing against the existence of a "designer" and that design is only
"apparent":
"The "watchmaker" comes from William Paley, the eighteenth-and early
nineteenth-century theologian who was one of the most famous exponents
of the argument of design. Paley the eighteenth-and early nineteenth-
century theologian who was one of the most famous exponents of the
argument of design. Paley famously said that if you are wandering along
and stumble upon a watch and you pick it up and open it, you realize that
the internal mechanism-the way in which it's all meshed together-is detailed
perfection. Add this to the fact that the watch mechanism has a purpose-
namely, telling the time-then this compels you to conclude that the watch
had to have a designer. Paley then went on throughout his book giving
example after example of detailed structure of living organisms-eyes, heart,
bowels, joints, and everything about animals-showing how beautifully
designed they apparently are, how well they work, how intricately the parts
mesh together, just like the cog wheels of a watch. And if the watch had to
have a watchmaker, then of course these biological structures also had to
have a designer. My reason for beginning The Blind Watchmaker was
Paley. He really saw the magnitude of the problem of adaptation when
most people just didn't see how elegant, how beautiful, apparent design in
life is. Paley saw that, and Darwin saw that. And Darwin was introduced to
it at least partly by Paley. All undergraduates at Cambridge had to read
William Paley. He at least put the question right. So the only thing Paley
got wrong, which is quite a big thing, was the answer to the question. And
nobody got the right answer until Charles Darwin in the nineteenth
century." (Dawkins R., "Interview", in Campbell N.A., Reece J.B. &
Mitchell L.G., "Biology", 1999, p412).
Since the existence of a Designer is "a religious" question (Dawkins
even points out that Paley was a theologian), here is science
addressing a "religious question" and coming down on the side
of atheism.
Moreover, the notes for lecture 1 of the first unit in the degree, the
"Origin and Evolution of Life", state:
-----------------------------------------
[...]
How did life originate
* Creation
* Panspermia
* Terrestrial
Creation
* not testable
* Science is
- materialistic
- testable
- falsifiable
- therefore always changing
* How did the creator originate
[...]
-----------------------------------------
Here we have "science" discussing "creation" and "How did the creator
originate"? These are very definitely "religious questions".
Indeed the very claim that "Science is...materialistic" is effectively ruling out
the possibility that an Intelligent Designer might have created the things which
science studies, and so is also a "religious question".
>SJ>I am sure that the leading evolutionists realise that, otherwise they would
>>have long ago allowed creationism to be taught in schools alongside
>>evolution.
SB>Nah. The First Amendment forbids the government to esablish a state religion
>and that includes teaching Christian origins myths in science class.
Then what are the science textbooks doing *attacking* "Christian origins
myths in science class"?
And while the USA constitution may forbid the "establishment" of "a state
religion" that would not rule out a broad-based Intelligent Design theory
which is the property of no particular "religion".
>SJ>I find amusingly naive the statement: "science demands mechanisms. It
>>demands to know how something happens". Apart from the fact that this is
>>simply false: Newton proposed his theory of gravity with no mechanism,
>>just a description; what exactly is the "mechanisms" of the origin of life and
>>macroevolution, for starters?
SB>"origin of life" is abiogenesis and doesn't have anything to do with
>evolution.
The title of Biology unit that I am studying this semester: "Origin and
Evolution of Life" for a refutation of that self-evidently false claim.
"Abiogenesis" is taught in the context of "evolution" in *biology* courses.
As leading origin of life researcher Stanley Miller has said: "The origin of
life is the origin of evolution" (Miller S.L, in Radetsky P., "Life's Crucible",
Earth, Vol. 7, No. 1, February 1998, p36).
SB>The mechanisms for abiogenesis are chemistry and physics. For
>evolution, the mechanisms are variation and selection.
This too simplistic. Most, if not all, "abiogenesis" scenarios depend on
"variation and selection". For example, as another leading origin of life
researcher, Leslie Orgel, wrote an article in New Scientist titled:
"Darwinism at the very beginning of life" and his first paragraph was:
"Even before there was life there was natural selection. The biochemistry
we see today is the outcome of those early struggles." (Orgel L.E.,
"Darwinism at the very beginning of life," New Scientist, 15 April 1982,
p149).
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"At the core of punctuated equilibria lies an empirical observation: once
evolved, species tend to remain remarkably stable, recognizable entities for
millions of years. The observation is by no means new, nearly every
paleontologist who reviewed Darwin's Origin of Species pointed to his
evasion of this salient feature of the fossil record. But stasis was
conveniently dropped as a feature of life's history to he reckoned with in
evolutionary biology. And stasis had continued to be ignored until Gould
and I showed that such stability is a real aspect of life's history which must
be confronted-and that, in fact, it posed no fundamental threat to the basic
notion of evolution itself. For that was Darwin's problem: to establish the
plausibility of the very idea of evolution, Darwin felt that he had to
undermine the older (and ultimately biblically based) doctrine of species
fixity. Stasis, to Darwin, was an ugly inconvenience." (Eldredge N., "Time
Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of
Punctuated Equilibria", Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, pp188-
189)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 06 2000 - 17:01:50 EST