Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

I happen to be a strong proponent of the Theory of Evolution -- I'm also a former educator. I think it's just plain stupid for proponents of the ToE to insist on pretending that there are no counter-hypothesis. If you do this, you're being counter-productive -- you're hurting the cause.

If students feel that they're being indoctrinated -- they'll simply rebel, and be all the more receptive to ID, or other explanations. Students will believe they're being indoctrinated when they learn that they were not allowed to be exposed to any alternative explanations.

Teach the scientific method. Show how it applies to the Theory of Evolution.

I still agree with you!

But to introduce religious-based objections to the theory of evolution, as if they were science-based objections, means addressing those objections using the scientific method.

That means they are toast! Is this what you are advocating?

As an example, what do you propose teaching about the young earth belief? Would you treat it as a serious scientific hypothesis?

If you show what the evidence is on both sides I have no objection--because there is no scientific evidence suggesting a young earth.

But if you feel obliged, for political reasons, to present religious belief as if it were scientific evidence, on an equal footing to a couple of centuries of scientific research, then I have an objection.

I'm serious about this question, and would really appreciate continued dialog.

29 posted on 07/13/2007 8:37:40 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: Coyoteman
You can’t just pretend that those “religious-based objections” aren’t out there. Better that you do a fair summary of those objections & then proceed to show why they don’t stand up to scientific scrutiny.

The concept of an intelligent designer shouldn't just be dismissed out of hand — to do so would be simply telling students to accept what the teacher tells them on faith, while rejecting what their religious leaders are telling them to accept on faith. If ID is treated as just another hypothesis — then you can proceed to disprove it, in a scientific manner.

ID is not scientific evidence — no more than the ToE is evidence. Observations can be evidence — and there are many things that both ID and ToE proponents observe including: the existence of a multitude of species; the complexity of multicellular creatures; the complexity of a single cell; etc.

Darwin himself made such observations. He then formulated a tentative theory that explained his observations. He (and a great many other scientists) then used the theory to generate testable hypothesis. So far, the hypotheses have not been rejected, and the validity of the ToE has increased accordingly.

Why not follow the same process with ID, and show — scientifically — how that “theory” has been disproven?

32 posted on 07/14/2007 3:20:32 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson