EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

[Guest guest]

Hi again,

>

> > Why can't we allow teachers to present the science-for example,

> > results of attempts to create organic life from inorganic,

quantify

> > the probability of it arising by chance, etc- then openly discuss

> > various implications and controversial areas-scientific,

religious

> > and otherwise, and let people decide for themselves? That would

be

> > no more advancing religion than teaching about different

religious

> > beliefs and customs (this is still taught, I think?), so long as

all

> > are represented equally of course.

>

> I am all for teaching alternative theories, in part because I think

> that it is much more important for kids to be taught critical

thinking

> and analytical skills than to be taught " facts " to memorize.

>

> Nevertheless, these have to be taught within the context of what is

> actually reasonable. You cannot represent " equally " every theory,

> because there is no shortage of quackery.

>

> I think that irreducible complexity would make a useful classroom

> discussion. Although the argument is essentially pseudoscience,

it is

> an excellent way to address why complex systems are not

irreducible.

> In either case, a classroom discussion on complex biochemical

systems

> and the arguments for and against irreduciblity would be of value.

> Since the lesson would mostly focus on things that are actually

true

> -- for example, the actual details of the biochemical system --

then

> there is educational value from the factual perspective as well as

the

> analytical perspective.

>

> On the other hand, presenting calculations of probabilities of life

> arising by chance has zero educational value and will only serve to

> obfuscate the science and perpetuate fundamental misunderstandings

of

> science and would therefore in my opinion not only have no

educational

> value but would be eductionally harmful. There is absolutely no

way

> for anyone to make such a calculation at this point because our

> understanding of most of the relevant matters is very small. Any

> calculations that assume " randomness " are inherent invalid based on

> their assumptions.

>

> Chris

>

> --

> The Truth About Cholesterol

> Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

> http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

>

I've been thinking some more on this and some of your other posts,

and have some new questions (lucky you . In your opinion, would it

be correct to say that the natural laws themselves appear inherently

non-random and purposeful?

Related to that, I also wanted to run by you another area under the

ID umbrella and see how you'd characterize it. I saw a documentary

called The Privileged Planet (based on the book Rare Earth) and it

basically challenges the conclusions of Carl Sagan in his book Pale

Blue Dot that there are likely tons of Earth-like planets out there

(I honestly don't know much about Sagan except he was an atheist who

gets a lot of face time on the Discovery Channel). Anyhow, in this

documentary they assert that the universe is largely very hostile to

life, especially terrestrial life, and delve into the numerous

variables that all had to converge for Earth to sustain complex life-

being within the narrow hospitable zones of the galaxy and solar

system, planet of the right size and composition, right size moon,

type of sun, type of atmosphere, etc, etc. Then they take it one

step further and make the observation that the very conditions that

make a planet habitable coincidentally (or not) also make it ideal

for observing the universe and making scientific discoveries, which

some believe implies purpose. They never assert that Earth is or was

the only habitable planet, only that Sagan's conclusions that we are

one of a million earths which implies random insignificance and

puposelessness were unsupported by what we know about the universe.

Not to open a new can of worms, but what the hey, I was getting

bored of evolution anyway