Re: The El Tajon situation [was Judge Jones sided]

Ted Davis wrote:

>Ted replies:
>
>Bob, we're on the same page, mostly.
>
>However, I think that students should *also* see that there are persistent
>explanatory problems in evolutionary theory--such as the details of how
>precisely to interpret the fossil record (see my earlier posts on this), and
>whether or not the origin of life and its complexity are adequately
>accounted for in present science.
>

Two questions 1) what are the persistent explanatory problems in
evolutioanry theory such as the fossil record? and 2) why is the origin
of life relevant to evolutionary theory?
I am personally fascinated by the origin and evolution of the genetic
code and much work has been done here to help unravel its origins and
evolution. Despite the tough task of unraveling 3.5 billion years of
history, we are now much closer to understanding potential mechanisms
and their relative importances.

>I do not believe that simply by raising
>questions about such things that one is simply advancing religion--even
>though religious critics of evolution are overjoyed by the exercise. The
>common ground that ought to exist here is truth--religous people believe in
>it, and secular people do too. The problem is a lack of agreement about how
>to establish what is true, and that's where the poltics come in and distort
>truth and the search for it. It is TRUE, pure and simple, that there are
>important explanatory "gaps" in evolutionary theory (as Michael Ruse even
>admits); it is also TRUE that some of these "gaps" have persisted since
>1859. It seems fair to me to ask whether a fully Darwinian paradigm is
>
>
Such as?

>really adequate--it's the kind of question that Kuhn writes about. When do
>anomalies become crises in a science? If most scientists don't perceive a
>crisis, at least quite a few see the areas that continue to present
>explanatory problems, and science education is very well served when
>students understand this point.
>
>
>
Sure but ID presents sham examples of these problems. If there are
really such persistent anomalies then lets focus on them but let's not
use them to further a religious/socio-political goal.

>Responding to Rich, now, I don't think that anyone should abandon any
>particular idea b/c of the judge's ruling here. I continue to think that we
>need to revise our idea of what counts as public education, to break down
>the monopoly that "secular" education presently holds on our schools.
>
>
Secular education, a fascinating term. What is secular education?

>"Secular" in the sense of disallowing religious views to be expressed is not
>nearly the same thing as "secular" in the sense of genuine neutrality toward
>all individual expressions of religion. There's the problem, as I have
>thought for about twenty years. Johnson and his friends are entirely right
>about that part, and I've thought so before they were saying it.
>
>
If ID was all about making sure that 'religious' expressions from both
sides should be avoided then fine but Johnson, rather than moving
towards a more neutral stance seems to be wanting to replace what they
see as materialism with their own version. Pointing out that Dawkins'
statements are not always scientifically supportable is fine, people who
abuse science to further their beliefs do in my opinion much harm to both.
Received on Wed Jan 11 12:48:01 2006