Keith Devens .com

Hey!

I just wanted to correct a mistake I made about the city--it's not chicago (although they are having similar discussions too) but Columbus, Ohio....

I fixed your quote to mirror what it is right now on yaysoft.com.

Hi Keith

I'd like to continue our discussion over here as those tiny boxes make me nervous to type--makes me feel rushed!

Anyway, I think we might be talking past eachother as we're both not quite on the same page. I was focusing on the claim that certian structures cannot be reduced past a certian point (Hemoglobin can't be Hemoglobin if it didn't have that specific molecular structure), and I think you are trying to make a broader distinction within the realm of macro-evolution. I'll try my best at addressing these concerns, but keep in mind I am a lowly college drop out.

I don't know what you know and accept about evolution so I apologise ahead of times for any false assumptions I make.

First of all, it's important to understand that evolution is not merely a series of random selections due to various mutations, but that these mutations must serve the interest of the species in order to survive to reproduce. Now that we've got that out of the way...

Perhaps it would be wiser if we simply discuss the concept of teaching "alertnative theories to evolution" in public schools--it's a little easier and I don't need a degree in organic chemistry to explain it.

Should "alternative theories" be taught in science class? The answer is no. If we did that, then we'd have to put EVERY 'aleternate theory' in the text books--and only one is accepted in the scientific community--that of evolution. There are of course debates about how evolution occurs, but lets not mistake those debates as evidence that evolution is bunk.

Science is not a democratic system whose findings we might not agree with can be wisked away.

Ok I'm sort of rambling here--I tend to do that...Now in your quote above from Wells claims that "Intelligent Design" theory is compatible with "Christian Creationism" but "is not creationism" is incorrect. Whether it is a Christian god, or one of the many Roman Gods or whatever, it does not matter--these are all bringing religion into a place it does not belong. (I'm not saying that Religion doesn't belong in public debate about scientific ethics--I welcome such input)

So I said a lot of stuff in all sorts of weird order, but I hope I made some sort of point.

Love your site!

Hmm, not sure where to start Should "alternate theories" be taught in science class? That's not quite the right question. Just because a theory is in the minority in terms of the number of its advocates doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught. What's more important is what the people have to say. I think the intelligent design school has some important things to say.

As far as it being a religious doctrine, many of its adherents really don't believe that it is. Some of them have a commitment to a creationist theory of origins that goes deeper than their scientific commitment - Spetner is a religious Jew, for instance (though that certainly doesn't negatively impact on the science of what he has to say). However, many in the "movement" really don't consider themselves to be promoting a religion. They seem to be modern-day deists in that way.

I don't care if we call it "Intelligent Design" and have a nice section heading in a biology book The point is that there are major problems with evolutionary theory, and that needs to be taught. Evolutionary theory is assumed from the outset in biology classes and textbooks, not taught or ever explained. Even my friend when he majored in biology and chemistry at Rutgers was never "taught" evolution. It took his own study to really understand it: that there's a difference between macro- and micro- evolution, that there are two major camps within the evolutionary community which disagree about fundamental issues regarding evolutionary theory, etc. Similarly, when we discussed evolution, my friend's girlfriend simply wasn't aware of a lot of the issues involved, even though she's a biology major at Richmond University.

Evolutionary theory itself is a dogma in education which can't be questioned, and for which no problems in the theory are discussed. Evolution is itself a religious doctrine rooted in a commitment to naturalism. Always remember that our schools are not, and cannot be, ideologically neutral. Anything that challenges the prevailing naturalistic paradigm is excluded at the outset.