Reflectorites
On Tue, 30 May 2000 11:13:51 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
>>RW>I have no objection to informing children that a tiny minority of
>>>scientists hold dissenting views. If that was all the anti-evolutionists wanted,
>>>there would probably be no problem. But you're wrong. They're demanding much
>>>more than that. Indeed, the Kansas school board removed references to evolution
>>>and the age of the Earth from the state education standards. And IDers are
>>>trying to have ID taught in public schools.
There is AFAIK no plans by IDErs to have ID taught in public schools.
ID's main objective is to have the philosophical assumptions of evolution
and its problems taught in public schools.
Having said that, there is no reason why ID should not be taught in public
schools. ID is a scientific position not a religion. It has as much right to be
taught in public schools as materialistic-naturalism which is now taught in
public schools.
>>RW>It seems to me you're seriously understating the aims of IDers. I find it
>>>hard to believe that Phillip Johnson "favor[s] teaching children orthodox
>>>Darwinism"!
That Richard finds it "hard to believe that Phillip Johnson "favor[s] teaching
children orthodox Darwinism" only shows that Richard knows very little
about Johnson. Johnson has consistently said over the years that he does
not favor banning evolution. What he favors is teaching *more* about
evolution, not less. Here is an example on the NCSE site which dates
back to *1993*. And I have several more like that :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://natcenscied.org/johnson.htm
NCSE SPECIAL:
Interview with Phillip E. Johnson
California Committees of Corrrespondence Newsletter, Third Quarter, 1993
[...]
PJ: There's been a lot of bad teaching for a lot of reasons and I'm in favor
good teaching, if we want to teach these kids more about evolution I'm in
favor of that, but what I think is really going on is
indoctrination...indoctrination in a naturalistic, philosophical outlook.
[...]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>BV>Hi Richard. Labeling ID a religious view seems like an attempt to prevent
>>>it being mentioned in schools. ID is the belief that the diversity of life and
>>the universe is too complex to have occurred by chance. That is compatible
>>with most religious views, but ID itself makes no religious statement,
>>except to claim the complexity of life is the result of intelligence. If enough
>>people hold this view, I see no harm in school children being aware of it.
RW>Again, you're understating the aims of IDers. They don't just want children
>to be "aware" of ID. They want to *teach* ID in schools.
See above. Since ID is a *scientific* theory, there would be nothing wrong
with it being taught in schools. But I am not aware of anyone in the ID
movement who is pushing for ID to be taught in schools.
But anti-ID is taught as science in public schools. A particularly clear
example of this is my university Biology textbook which has an interview
with Dawkins in which he argues against ID and for Darwinism's "apparent
design":
"One of your books, The Blind Watchmaker, argues the case for the
cumulative power of natural selection in the adaptation of organisms. Tell
us about the metaphorical title of that book.
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, p.412).
If Darwinism is allowed to be taught in schools and universities as a theory
which explains design (as apparent), then ID should also be taught in schools
as an alternative theory which also explains design (as real).
>BV>The Scopes trial was a fight to allow evolution to be discussed in school.
>>Today the fights are to prevent any criticism of "random mutation and
>>natural selection" from being discussed in school. As for Johnson, I give
>>you his own words ...
>>Here is what I wrote in the Chronicle of Higher Education: "Evolution is an
>>important topic, and students certainly should learn the theory and the
>>reasons why so many scientists think it is true. It is also a controversial
>>topic, and students should learn why."
RW>I know Johnson says that. But do you really think he would have the theory
>of evolution taught in schools if he had the choice?
This is a fallacious argument. How would Johnson *ever* have the choice
over whether or not evolution is taught in schools?
RW>Remember his strategy
>is called the "Wedge Strategy"--start off with relatively modest demands,
>and work up to your real goals.
Again, so what? That is the *proper* way to go about promoting one's
viewpoint in a democratic society. How far ID's "Wedge Strategy" will
get will depend how sound its arguments are. In the end it is up to the
general public to have the information presented it can make an informed
choice between apparent design (Darwinism) and real design (ID). The
Darwinists want the public to believe in apparent design without being
able to hear the evidence for real design.
RW>The Wedge Strategy's goal is: "To replace
>materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and
>hurnan beings are created by God". Note: "replace" not "supplement".
Again, so what? If ID thinks that its view is true and that its opposite
materialism-naturalism is false, it will of course have a *long-term* goal to
replace materialism, just like materialism has the same goal to replace
theism.
The difference is that the methods ID wants to do it by are reasoned
arguments and an *open* discussion of real vs apparent design, not by the use
of power and the marginalisation of rivals that Darwinism uses.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"One of the ironies of the history of biology is that Darwin did not really
explain the origin of new species in The Origin of Species, because he
didn't know how to define species. The Origin was in fact concerned
mostly with how a single species might change in time, not how one
species might proliferate into many." (Futuyma D.J., "Science on Trial: The
Case for Evolution," Pantheon: New York NY, 1982, p.152)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 01 2000 - 09:02:27 EDT