NRO Article

[EDarr1776 at aol.com]

In a message dated 3/17/2004 1:19:46 PM Central Standard Time, 
gene at osolaw.com writes:


> What would your view be of a high school science text book that, for 
> example, noted that Darwinian therory offers no explanation for how matter came to 
> exist in the first place?  Or, that macro-evolution is not subject to testing 
> under general scientific theory?  I think that is where I have concerns that 
> some views of evolution are as much philosophical as they are scientific - 
> and that teaching macro-evolution raises the same concerns in many ways that 
> teaching ID or creationism would.
> 

Origin of matter is well beyond the scope of evolution theory, so I'm not 
sure why a biology book would need to address it in the first place -- but there 
is relatively solid theory on how matter came to be, in physics.  Darwin 
didn't offer any conjecture on the origin of matter, and it has no effect on 
evolution theory.  It's not a part of require biology curricula in Texas, nor 
anywhere else I'm aware.  

I'm not sure what you mean by macroevolution not being subject to testing.  
It's been tested in every particular, in every aspect of evolution theory.  
While it is true that science used to be a much more closely-related branch of 
philosophy, I do not think it fair to say that the extrapolation backwards of 
evolution to include all living things is an unscientific leap.  Evolution is no 
less scientific than chemistry, physics, geology, or mathematics in that 
regard.

These are matters that would be in question, but for the evidence actually 
available.  If we assume that the mechanisms of evolution are uncertain and 
unproven, there would indeed be some difficulty in claiming them as science.  
There's just too much research that shows the five pillars of Darwin's theory are 
still true, and a great paucity of evidence that might challenge any of the 
pillars, in any branch of biology including paelontology.  Had evolution not 
been observed in real time, there might be a case.  But with so many examples of 
evolution in hand, well documented, there is a great onus on critics to do 
much more than ask questions -- they've got to demonstrate a spectacular failure 
of the theory to conform to observed conditions somewhere.  That's not 
happened.

Which is why I have argued on this list that hypotheticals need to be 
grounded in what the evidence actually is.  I've always been struck by the 
depositions in the Arkansas trial.  Creationists under oath could not produce science to 
back creationism against the disproofs, and admitted it.   Intelligent design 
can be held to no less high a standard.

All eleven high school texts proposed for Texas were approved without an 
explanation for the origins of matter, I think -- one or two may have mentioned 
Big Bang, but it's not necessary -- and without disclaimers against the theory. 
If anything, I think they are too timid in the presentation, which is why so 
many kids don't get it.  The Advanced Placement books are better, I think -- 
and that raises a question of equity towards kids who are not AP biology 
students.  

The National Academy of Sciences notes in their book to parents and teachers 
on teaching evolution that "theory," in science, means a well-proven, 
well-accepted explanation for what we see, and is not to be confused with 
"hypothesis."  Scientists call it a "theory of evolution" because it is so well 
established.  

Under Texas rules, I think books that said evolution offers no explanation 
for the origins of matter, or that evolution can't be tested, could be found 
factually incorrect.  Books can be rejected for failure to correct such things.

Of course, we may get a test of the regulations here, too.  

Is there a good, science reason that biology texts should address Big Bang?  
Is there evidence from any source that any part of Darwinian theory does not 
work in the here and now?  Then bring that evidence to the attention of text 
writers, and it'll be in the books in the next cycle.  

Ed Darrell
Dallas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20040318/056e9cbd/attachment.htm