|
In a clear effort in futility, I
wonder if it would be possible to identify some minimalist consensus on the
list on this issue; one that reflects Mark’s thoughtful recognition of ID’s
current limitations (see below) as well as Brad’s concerns about the
overreaching of some evolutionists. So – suppose someone drafted a
statement disclaiming scientific overreaching as in
And then added to it a statement building on Mark’s
comment – that
Is that a statement list members think school boards can
constitutionally, and should, as a matter of policy, endorse? Alan Brownstein My sense is that some (or
perhaps all) ID proponents think that some features of biological systems were
designed but that other features evolved, either independently of design or
after implementation of an intelligent design. ID does not, I think, necessarily
involve a view that all present features of biological systems were designed.
It does not necessarily require that the intelligent designer intervene at
every moment or be responsible for every present-day feature. Thus ID and the
existence of evolutionary processes are not necessarily incompatible. That's
one reason why I think some anti-ID claims are overstated, such as the claim
that ID is inconsistent with a scientific understanding of how bacteria evolve
immunity to antibiotics, or the claim that examples of poor design falsify ID. On the other hand, the
inability to falsify ID by pointing to poor design is one reason why it may be
hard to take ID at this point seriously as a scientific theory. ID seems to be
underdefined. When ID proponents identify systematically (rather than item by
item) which present-day features (or precursors of present-day features) are
the result of intelligent design, then it will be possible to consider whether
the theory matches the facts. Until then, any example of a
poorly operating biological feature can be explained as the result of
evolutionary processes, and in a sense ID theory will remain nonfalsifiable,
with ID proponents able to cherry-pick examples that support, or seem to
support, their view. At least that's my sense of the matter. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock "In the absence of some external force which is not
bound by the laws of science, the evidence that we CAN test tells us that
evolution is what happened. If there was a supernatural actor in the
process, however, then all bets are off because science cannot test the
supernatural." That is what they say
when they are being careful. Some are sloppy, and some deliberately
overreach, but that's the claim. Chris Lund might have meant
that putting ID in the biology class or the comparative religion class is a
proxy for whether to teach that ID's claim to be science is true. Or he
might have simply meant that government can't teach that a religious view is
true, nor can it teach that a religious view is false. Where ever you put
ID in the curriculum, the government would have to be agnostic about its
supernatural claims. Douglas Laycock University of 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad M Pardee
|
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
