What we know about this is exceedingly limited in view of the time and effort involved with observing it. Connections in morphology do not necessitate connections in history. It is not unreasonable in the least to assume them, but if you do, be advised that the evidence will fit every time. The deduced family tree of which you speak exists because one has already assumed (induced) a historic chain reaction that progresses from the simple to the complex. If one approaches science from such a standpoint it is a simple matter to "explain" all things without reference to a deity.
. . . the Razor doesn't have to be in biology class; it's a general principle that applies to all sciences . . .
It may or may not be applied in these disciplines. It is by no means a self-evident truth. Just another handy tool that may or may not have explanatory power. It would be a mistake to make Occam's Razor a test of what constitutes objective reality from case to case. There are times when a more complicated explanation not only fits in theory but also represents what is happening.
. . . it's a bit unclear to me as to whether you're talking about biology or physics.
It is even more unclear to me how one could treat the subject of biology without reference to physical laws. Same with chemistry. Maybe you can compartmentalize the sciences and maintain strict boundaries between them. I would think that to be tough and unnecessary. But you are free to accept and propound whatever kind of science you wish.
Public schools ought to provide classes and textbooks that accomodate atheistic, theistic, and agnostic science, for the students (whose parents' tax dollars support the schools to begin with) each begin with one of these sets of ground rules which in turn color the interpretation and explanation of the universe as we know it.
If it proves untenable or impractical to accommodate multiple starting points, then it is best to stay away from positive statements that conflict with them, or at least make the points with qualifying tone.
Science is loath to declare it has all the answers. It needs to keep that message at the fore.
What is 'theistic' science? And shall we give Islamic, Buddist and other creeds equal time?
FC: What we know about this is exceedingly limited in view of the time and effort involved with observing it.
Huh? ERVs are part of the genome; by definition they are inherited.
Connections in morphology do not necessitate connections in history. It is not unreasonable in the least to assume them...
True
...but if you do, be advised that the evidence will fit every time.
False in at least two ways. 1) Sometimes a new fossil requires that the tree be redrawn in places; for example, was archeopteryx an ancestor of modern birds, or a late cousin of them? 2) There are hypothetical fossils that simply wouldn't fit; eg half amphibian and half bird. These have never been found.
The deduced family tree of which you speak exists because one has already assumed (induced) a historic chain reaction that progresses from the simple to the complex.
This is verging on the incoherent. (sticking with primates) the observed facts are things like the shape of a human and (non-human) ape jaw, and also the shapes of fossil jaws which are intermediate between these two. Based on this, these fossils appear to be intermediates or common ancestors. Repeat this analysis for many other parts besides the jaws, and you get the family tree for primates.
The "historic chain reaction that progresses from the simple to the complex" is not needed here. All we're doing is classifying things, and the simplest classification that includes the fossils just happens to look like a family tree.
The fact that ERVs and other genetic markers show that the details of the genomes of living creatures fit exactly into this scheme makes the common descent hypothesis even stronger.
[Occam's Razor]
... is by no means a self-evident truth. Just another handy tool that may or may not have explanatory power.
It doesn't have explanatory power exactly, it simply eliminates "explanations" with redundant/meaningless hypotheses.
It would be a mistake to make Occam's Razor a test of what constitutes objective reality from case to case.
Objective reality just is, the Razor only deals with hypotheses and theories.
There are times when a more complicated explanation not only fits in theory but also represents what is happening.
Please give a few concrete examples of this, preferably from contemporary science.
It is even more unclear to me how one could treat the subject of biology without reference to physical laws. Same with chemistry.
One can't. Always and everywhere biology has to be consistent with physics and chemistry.
. Maybe you can compartmentalize the sciences and maintain strict boundaries between them. I would think that to be tough and unnecessary. But you are free to accept and propound whatever kind of science you wish.
"Specialize" and "focus" are better than "compartmentalize". For a long time the rules of chemistry were simply laws (valences, combining energies, redox, periodic table, etc) with no theoretical basis. Since the time of Bohr et al, we now can describe chemical bonds in terms of quantum theory. This makes a few things clearer (bond angles, stability/existence of benzene rings, etc), but it is still profitable to study chemistry just using the old rules. This is basically what is done in high school, as highschoolers aren't in any position to learn QM.
Similarly, Mendel posited laws of genetics without knowing a thing about genes or DNA. It is still worth studying.
Public schools ought to provide classes and textbooks that accomodate atheistic, theistic, and agnostic science
How about just plain science? You know, observe the natural world, hypothesize, experiment, theorize, that sort of thing. Theism or the lack of it simply doesn't come up.
Science is loath to declare it has all the answers. It needs to keep that message at the fore.
We agree. However, it does provide detailed predictions about the physical world, and local school boards and the NEA should be loath to attempt to redefine this successsful enterprise, lest they kill the golden goose.