Sorry -- this isn't an answer to your question, but just a thought provoked.
As John Walley wrote, it's a needed critical response to a sloppy habit
where science interfaces with the public / educational arena. I
remember going through the Denver natural history museum which
(typically I'm sure) had great graphical presentations of atoms and
molecules randomly coming together and forming a more complicated
molecule and onward -- to the first cell. I don't remember there being
any technical substance to the presentation of this particular exhibit
(forget about amino acids, proteins, etc.); it was obviously geared for
an elementary audience. The main thrust of the content seemed to be the
implication of "randomness" in its typical metaphysically inflated
role. And there was no hint of speculation anywhere in it. A young
child may just as well have thought he was seeing some actual video
footage of this kind of thing happening.
Even to someone who has no theological hangups with evolution, -- even a
level headed atheist, this should be grounds for criticism, shouldn't
it? There are times, I believe, when a teacher over simplifies
something so a student can understand (speaking of accommodation!), but
this seems more an indoctrination into something not yet understood by
the would-be educators, but merely assumed. And that assumption isn't
even scientific, but a religious proposition. I applaud Polkinghorne if
he challenges these habits. YECs should not be seen as giving the only
alternative answer to such sloppy pretense of certainty. A museum
should not be afraid to use the words "we don't yet know this", and yet
apparently they are afraid.
--Merv
Steve Martin wrote:
>
>
> I remember seeing a quote by Polkinghorne to the effect that it
> mystified him how evolutionary biologists were so confident in their
> account of the development of life on earth. How could they be so
> sure that 3.5 billion years was enough for the evolutionary process to
> explain the development of single celled organisms all the way up to
> the current state of terrestrial diversity? As a physicist and a
> bottom up thinker, he felt that more detailed calculations should be
> provided before conclusions were so confidently proposed. (I'm
> pretty sure he closed the paragraph saying he trusted the evolutionary
> biologists anyways).
>
>
>
> My question: Does anyone know where this quote is from? I'm skimmed
> through a couple of Polkinghorne books now and can't seem to find it.
>
>
> --
> Steve Martin (CSCA)
> http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Nov 10 21:09:13 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Nov 10 2007 - 21:09:13 EST