Replies

Be careful or you will get what you wish for. I for one, would love to see a history of science class taught -- one that teaches how science is done and how scientists think about problems.

I have no problem with that provided what is taught is the truth. By truth I don't mean from a creationist perspective.

Some of you guys understand the role of science in 3 basic categories: repeatable events, unpredictable events, singular events. Science at its best involves the first category. The materialistic origin of life belongs in the third category and is untouchable by science. So when Retro drops the "evolution is science" platitude on us he is confused about the categories.

Much about evolution belongs in the second category. Unpredictable events are like murders. No one is there to observe them. The detective comes in and trys to put the clues together. He tries to interpret the data.

Last election there was some racist (anti-White) rhetoric in political commercials about Black churches burning. The evidence was interpreted (Black churches burn) and the cause was proclaimed (White racists did it). It turned out that not only was the evidence misinterpreted by bias, the evidence showe that Blacks were burning their own churches.

So it is about the unrepeatable events. Two detectives in the room, same evidence, both arrive at different conclusions. I don't want to hear that the scientist didn't go into the room with the outcome already decided. The posted article illustrates otherwise:

a list of 100 U.S. scientists who said they were skeptical that the cornerstones of evolution — random mutation and natural selection — could account for the complexity of life. The list included professors and researchers at Princeton, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Pennsylvania, Yale and the National Laboratories at Livermore, Calif., and Los Alamos, N.M.

I like the murder analogy and have posted it many times on FR. Of course there is the fact that evolutionary events -- mutation and selection -- are currently occurring and are observable. Personally I think that bright kids would enjoy having a class in science controversies, but I don't think it ought to replace the regular content of science teaching.

a list of 100 U.S. scientists who said they were skeptical that the cornerstones of evolution — random mutation and natural selection — could account for the complexity of life. The list included professors and researchers at Princeton, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Pennsylvania, Yale and the National Laboratories at Livermore, Calif., and Los Alamos, N.M.

And Recently, a 100 scientists named Steve said that they completely supported evolution: Guys named Steve.

I think one can propose that if a couple hundred scientists named Steve that sign a petition to support evolution, then there are at least one hundred thousand scientists in the general pool of scientists who support it. You aren't winning any popularity contests.