Re: Fw: Ohio Votes 13-5 to Adopt Lesson Plan Critical of Evolution

I want to respond to Denyse, so I've inserted my comments below.

>>> "Denyse O'Leary" <oleary@sympatico.ca> 03/10/04 08:27AM >>>
If Darwin's theory cannot be questioned, it is
not science.

Ted: Agreed. IMO, the scientific establishment is more than touchy about
this. However, historically many of those who question evolution do so for
religious reasons, not primarily scientific ones. THus, IMO, the scientific
establishment has reasons to be touchy--they're tired of being criticized by
people who object to a theory for religious reasons, but claim that there
are scientific reasons as well.

If the supporters of Darwinism think the theory
is viable, they should welcome critical inquiry
instead of opposing it.

Ted: Agreed. But there are quite a few people in the ID camp who (a) do
not accept an earth older than 10,000 years and/or (b) do not believe that
humans are related biologically to other animals. Both of these points do
fly in the face of tons of genuine science. It is difficult to see why
criticism on those points should be welcomed, when the evidence is seen by
most scientists as overwhelming.

The fact that supporters may well launch
lawsuits to prevent critical thinking tells me
that the theory is in deep trouble.

Ted: I agree that it would be better pedagogically to encourage students to
consider some of the objections that are raised. HOWEVER, then let them
consider in depth the evidence for the earth's great age, the big bang,
common descent, human antiquity, and many other things in the process. If
we want a genuinely open inquiry about such things--which is what I'd like
to see--there are going to be a lot of religious people (including I think
popular supporters of ID) who are going to be upset. Open inquiry cuts both
ways, and most schools are not presently giving in-depth treatment to the
scientific evidence relative to the history of life.

Nothing that Darwin's detractors might say will
ever be as powerful evidence as this.

Ted: I have never regarded legislative and judicial actions as powerful
evidence for the truth or falsity of any scientific theory. This statement
cuts both ways, too.

There is no law you can pass or strike down that
will prevent people from knowing that Darwinism
cannot do what its supporters claim, because the
supporters' own actions are now the strongest
testimony against the theory.

Ted: It's perfectly fair IMO for ID people to "call the question," to claim
that scientific claims about the explanatory scope of Darwinism are
overstated.

In that regard, the Darwinists increasing remind
me of Marxists and Freudians, determined at all
costs to prevent critical analysis of their
theory, thus hastening a collapse.

Ted: I won't hold my breath on the collapse. Phil Johnson and his friends
in Seattle once believed that evolution would collapse in a few years, now
they're saying maybe 25 years from now. I don't believe it will "collapse"
in my lifetime or long after that. I see far more people who do their own
study of the relevant science, move from denying evolution to affirming it,
than the other way around. (There is traffic in both directions, contrary
to what mainstream scientists sometimes want people to think.) Denyse knows
Denis Lamoureux's story quite well, he would be just one example of this,
one die-hard antievolutionist who lost his antievolutionist faith once he
actually started to study the evidence. It's *that* part (the
antievolutionist attitude) that drives many ID people and fuels their
popular support, IMO. Mike Behe, on the other hand, is an evolutionist
(according to what he says in Darwin's Black Box), he simply objects to the
ways in which evolution is interpreted metaphysically and the ways in which
the state of scientific evidence on the origin of complexity is often
misrepresented to the public. Those are fair objections, I don't see them
as antievolutionary at the core. But someone like Jon Wells is
fundamentally antievolutionist--he denies common descent, human ancestry
from primates, etc. This part of ID strikes a chord with many laypersons.
Received on Wed Mar 10 10:18:37 2004