Re: Creationism in Minnesota

["Karen Canty" <kvscanty@pacbell.net>]

Thank you George...

Karen

-----Original Message-----
From: arn-l-owner@interversity.org [mailto:arn-l-owner@interversity.org]
On Behalf Of George K Cunningham
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 4:05 PM
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Subject: Re: [arn-l] Creationism in Minnesota

Scott, Dan, Joe, et. al.,

Creationism and intelligent design have no business in a science
classroom. 

The arguments of both creationists and intelligent designers boil down
to one essential issue.  They assert that evolution and related
scientific ideas are only theories that have not been proven.   Of
course all scientific theories are tentative and subject to possible
refutation.  Some of course more likely than others.  In this sense the
spherical shape of earth is a theory as is the heliocentric character of
our universe.  Evolution is a theory which is unlikely to be disproven,
but if some of its tenets are disproven and some are certainly being
questioned, they will be replaced by equally materialist explanations.

This all begs the question of where is the proof for intelligent
design.  The advocates of this view have a ready answer.  They assert
that proof is embodied in the only source of truth, the Bible. 

I have no problem with people who take a literal interpretion of the
Bible.  I know wonderful, intelligent people who think this way.  The
important point is that this is theology not science.

George K. Cunningham
University of Louisville

>>> dlaitsch@ascd.org 3/23/2004 11:02:19 AM >>>
Hi Scott,
Thanks for the excellent posts. I've enjoyed your comments and subtle
humor (*42). I have a couple of thoughts I'd like to throw into the mix.
Let me start by saying upfront that my comments will be broad, rather
than specific, since I know almost nothing about subtleties of ID, and
that while I accept evolution as a valid scientific theory, I know
little about the current research debates and questions being brought to
that debate within the scientific community.

Within the "philosophy of science" there are fairly rigid requirements
for "theories" based on repeated verification and experimentation of
hypothesis. Within the theory of evolution, my understanding is that
that research does exist and that the body of scientific research does
support evolution as a "scientific theory." 

I cannot imagine that ID rises to the same level...that of a
"scientific theory" supported by repeated experimentation and
corroboration. If it does, then of course we should be discussing it in
K-12 schools, but if it doesn't, then we shouldn't. If, for example, ID
is really a hypothesis in need of testing, then fine, let scientists
test it, but it should not be promoted as a competing theory. If
proponents call something a "theory," that does not actually make it a
"scientific theory" to be taught in science courses. This fundamental
lack of understanding is where I see the real problem.

Under the broader "philosophy of science," a decent set of procedures
and protections against such politicization exists. As you point out,
scientists (hopefully) are equipped with the ethical and philosophical
tools to engage in the complexity of debates around these complex issues
of theory, hypothesis, experimentation, verification, observation, etc,
but the general public is not necessarily grounded in these principles.


It is this general lack of understanding of the philosophical
underpinnings of science that initially opens the door to the debate.
This lack of understanding also has implications in other policy arenas,
and here I think specifically about the No Child Left Behind Act's
emphasis on "scientifically based research" and its definition of SBR as
being research that emphasizes "experimental or quasi-experimental
designs, with a preference for random-assignment experiments." Here we
have the opposite problem you identify...going from a lack of
experimental evidence (ID) to a refusal to accept anything other than
experimental evidence. (It is a little more complex given differences in
theory verses hypothesis, and  The problem is the same, a lack of
understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of science and research
by policymakers...and their resultant efforts to make policy that guides
science.

So it seems to me that, in addition to debating our own specific areas
(evolution on the one hand, SBR on the other) we also need to work to
help policymakers (and the general public) understand what science and
research are (and aren't) and can (and can't) do. While it may make our
efforts more difficult, would it make them more effective if we included
a brief discussion of our issues within the broad framework of a
philosophy of science?

Shouldn't the scientific community come together to work with
policymakers in understanding these broad ethical and philosophical
issues? Is there a national professional organization of scientists
devoted to this topic across disciplines that can advocate locally and
nationally (and even internationally) for sound scientific policy (NAS,
NRC, AAAS)? A quick look at AAAS suggests that they should be playing
this role (at least with ID), but I don't see much about advocacy or
governmental relations on their web site.

Dan

**********************************************
Dan Laitsch, Ph.D.
Senior Policy Analyst
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
1703 North Beauregard Street
Alexandria, VA 22311
(703) 578-9600



-----Original Message-----
From: arn-l-owner@interversity.org 
[mailto:arn-l-owner@interversity.org]On Behalf Of Scott Hays
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 9:06 AM
To: arn-l@interversity.org 
Subject: Re: [arn-l] Creationism in Minnesota


Joseph Bottini writes:

"Your statement that neither creationsim nor ID are generally accepted
among scientists . . is incorect.   Unfortunately, most evolutionists
refuse to read anything contrary to their view and thereby miss all
the
possible information out there indicating a possibility of something
other
than "mush to man" theory.  Log onto AIG network at ... "

"Answers in Genesis" sort of illustrates the source of the ID
argument,
doesn't it?  Intelligent Design theory, regardless of protestations to
the
contrary, is biblical creationism in sheep's clothing.  Sure there are
questions about evolution ... there are LOTS of them.  Some of the
hardest
questions are asked by scientists, not by God-fearing "scientists" who
already know all the answers because they have been revealed.  Science
is
not about "revelation", revealed Truth, or even Ultimate Causes.  All
of
those "scientists" at ID can certainly ask their questions, and their
questions are certainly worthy of exploration in the world of science
--
but NOT with the purpose of refuting an explanation, nor with the
purpose
of disguising an unstated "answer".  That is not how science works, and
to
pretend it is is to act nonscientifically.

But this discussion is too difficult for the average
"man-in-the-street" to
comprehend, since scientific literacy is not exactly a forte of the
people
of this nation.  Which is precisely what adherents of ID hope for ...
like
a president counting on essentially uncritical support for a war by
manipulating the truth (because the truth is either unprovable or
beyond
the ability of most people to have the patience to read in its
entirety) --
whether the truth be in who REALLY sank a particlar boat or in whether
or
not WMDs or al-Quida really reside within the presidential walls of a
nefarious (and useful) dictator (how many different ways did we "use"
Saddam Hussein, by the way?) ... people (in general) and the American
public (in particular) are not going to sit around while a bunch of
eggheads try to explain complex bodies of knowledge in a way that can
be
easily understood.  "Hey," says Jo(seph) Citizen, "It's 'fair' to hear
both
sides of the story"

Science is not "fair", Joseph.  It is not something that is agreed to
because it yields the "best possible good" (that it yields the "best
possible good" is often open to debate).  And science is not a body of
knowledge in which the Ultimate Answer (*42) is already known.

In fact, for ID to have any credibility in the world of science, it is
not
enough to merely ask questions.  I await the day that these
"scientists"
provide persuasive and replicable evidence that creation is the work of
a
Designer.

Finally, you claim that "evolutionists refuse to read anything contrary
to
their point of view."  How broad a brush to you wish to smear the world
of
science?  Do ALL "evolutionists" refuse to read things that contradict
their world view?  Or is it only "some" evolutionists who refuse to
read
the work of Mr. Wells?

I have to admire the brains behind ID.  They are very clever.  Every
effort, in the past, to impose the belief system of a minority on the
rest
of us has failed.  But they keep trying.  And they keep refining their
methods.  They have hit upon a pretty potent one this time around. 
It's
hard to fight the "fairness" argument, especially when it is so broad
as to
suggest that "all" of science is open to question, when it is really
only
one part of science that they want to call into question.  The ironic
part
of this is that this is exactly how science works -- if credible
questions
are asked, or if new evidence presents itself, science adjusts.  This
means, at base, that the questions asked by ID scientists are not
credible
(no matter how logical they sound), or else they would be rocking the
world
of science

Scott Hays



------------------------------------------------
Direct list questions to listmom@interversity.net