Stephen E. Jones wrote:
>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.
What else is there to ID? Aside from the negative side, the criticism of
the alternative naturalistic theory, what is the science within ID, analogous
to the work done within evolutionary biology?
>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.
But what would be taught, other than that evolution is wrong? And how would
the new model affect biological science in general?
>See above. Since ID is a *scientific* theory, there would be nothing wrong
>with it being taught in schools.
Criticism of evolutionary theory is itself part of evolutionary theory. Does
ID go beyond this to comprise a science in itself, with observations and
predictions of its own, unrelated to criticism of erroneous theories?
>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.
Please, discuss real design vs apparent design, in your own words,
without the conspiracy theory. And please specify whether 'Darwinism'
precludes macroevolution.
--Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ 415-648-0208 ~ cliff@cab.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 01 2000 - 15:04:32 EDT