Re: Government Shouldn't Choose Sides In Evolution Debate

From: Stephen E. Jones (sejones@iinet.net.au)
Date: Fri May 19 2000 - 22:36:51 EDT

  • Next message: Stephen E. Jones: "Re: New Bug Loose in Computers, Experts Say"

    Reflectorites

    Here is an extract from a letter to the editor of The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch from
    a US judge defending Phillip Johnson and ID.

    Judge Graham makes a good point about how "lawyers and judges are often
    required to assess the merits of scientific claims", so the argument that "Phillip
    E. Johnson is a law professor and not a scientist" and therefore "he is not
    qualified to critique evolutionary theory," is baseless.

    The full letter also had some good points about the origin of life.

    Steve

    =================================================================
    http://libpub.dispatch.com/cgi-bin/slwebcli.pl?DBLIST=cd00&DOCNUM=14606&TERMV=216:9:16461:9:22739:9:28004:9:

    The Columbus Dispatch

    GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T CHOOSE SIDES IN EVOLUTION
    DEBATE
    Date: Saturday, May 13, 2000
    Section: EDITORIAL & COMMENT
    Page: 11A
    Column: Letters to the Editor

    In a recent Forum-page column, I argued that the origin of life remains a
    mystery and that our public schools' science curriculum should include all
    scientific evidence bearing on the issue. Responses to my column provide
    insights on why scientific evidence in favor of intelligent design has not
    received fair consideration.

    First is the problem of stereotyping. The proponents of intelligent design
    are often miscast as biblical literalists. Then, there is the emotionalism this
    issue arouses, often leading to ridicule, name-calling and exaggerated
    claims instead of reasoned debate.

    The response from microbiologist Russell K. Durbin deserves a reply.
    Durbin implies that because Berkeley University's Phillip E. Johnson is a
    law professor and not a scientist, he is not qualified to critique evolutionary
    theory. But lawyers and judges are often required to assess the merits of
    scientific claims, as Durbin will soon discover if he ever should offer an
    expert opinion in a courtroom or seek to defend a patent. Science is not an
    inscrutable priesthood. Any person of reasonable intelligence should, with
    some diligence, be able to understand and critically evaluate a scientific
    theory. By the same token, I would expect a person of Durbin's obvious
    intelligence to be able to discern any errors of logic that might creep into
    my legal opinions.

    [...]

    U.S. District Judge James L. Graham

    Columbus

    [...]

    All content herein is (c) 2000 The Columbus Dispatch and may not be
    republished without permission.
    =================================================================

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "The account of the origin of life that I shall give is necessarily speculative;
    by definition, nobody was around to see what happened. There are a
    number of rival theories, but they all have certain features in common."
    (Dawkins R., "The Selfish Gene," [1976], Oxford University Press: Oxford
    UK, New Edition, 1989, p.14)
    Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 19 2000 - 22:35:54 EDT