Reflectories
On Mon, 5 Jun 2000 23:30:44 -0500 (CDT), Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:
[...]
>WE>If anyone doubts that the DI CRSC has made it their policy
>>to push teaching IDC concepts in secondary schools, have a
>>look at
>><http://www.discovery.org/crsc/CRSCdbEngine.php3?id=48>.
SJ>Thanks to Wesley for posting this. But again it is mainly a
>critique of evolution. I do not see it as a full-blown
>positive argument for ID. It's author, David DeWolf, is a
>professor of law, not one of ID's scientists or
>philosophers. So he would be unlikely to take the lead in
>proposing a scientific or philosophical argument for
>ID. Another law professor ,Phil Johnson, would do that before
>him. DeWolf's forte is the *legal* side of helping those
>teachers who are trying to correct evolution's errors and
>expose its philosophical assumptions.
SJ>The title and objectives of the document make this clear.
[...]
WE>Denial is not healthy.
Agreed! Maybe that's why I haven't needed to see a doctor due to not
being "healthy" since 1985! :-)
WE>[Quote]
>
>We're not suggesting that these theories [Origins stories from other
>religions - WRE] be presented, although there would be no scientific
>reason to suppress them; the reason we think that a biology teacher
>would be wise to present intelligent design along with Darwinism is
>that it is a necessary corrective to the impression frequently given
>that Darwinism is the only scientific theory of biological
>origins. Moreover, it explicitly addresses the question of the origin
>for the appearance of design, which is the central question that
>scientists have been addressing, both before and after Darwin. Also,
>since intelligent design is now attracting a good deal of serious
>attention among scientists, it is appropriate for teaching at the high
>school level.
>
>[End Quote - http://www.discovery.org/crsc/CRSCdbEngine.php3?id=48]
I was aware of this, and am not denying it. But I don't regard it as yet
"pushing ID in public schools". Note the low-key wording:
"...we think that a biology teacher would be wise to present intelligent
design..."
The article is addressed to those teachers who are already trying to present
the evidence both for *and against* "Darwinism".
The difference between Wesley and I on this point is one of perception. He
thinks ID is a bad thing so he regards even such a modest beginning as
already too much. I think ID is a good thing and I regard this modest
beginning as not yet enough!
On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 00:28:37 -0500 (CDT), Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:
Re: DI CSRC pushing IDC in public schools
[...]
WE>I use the "IDC" term based upon the evidence, not "in spite of"
>the evidence. Stephen is welcome to differ in his interpretation.
>As he notes, convincing the ideologically committed is
>unnecessary.
There is no need for "interpretation" in this case. The plain fact is that
Todd Moody is an *agnostic* professor of philosophy and a valued
member of the ID movement. Here is the "evidence" again:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.christianityonline.com/ct/2000/006/1.42.html ... Christianity
Today May 22, 2000, Vol. 44, No. 6, Page 42 .... "The power of ID is
precisely its minimalism," says Todd Moody, an agnostic and professor at
St. Joseph's University in Philadelphia. "It travels light, with no theological
baggage."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
As Wesley himself wrote: "Denial is not healthy"!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Bacteria, the study of which has formed a great part of the foundation of
genetics and molecular biology, are the organisms which, because of their
huge numbers, produce the most mutants. This is why they gave rise to an
infinite variety of species, called strains, which can be revealed by breeding
or tests. Like Erophila verna, bacteria, despite their great production of
intraspecific varieties, exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus
Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the
best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to
want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose
as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion
years ago!" (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a
New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY,
1977, p.87)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 09 2000 - 21:45:26 EDT