How Evolution Will Be Taught Someday
| June 10, 2007 | Posted by Granville Sewell under Intelligent Design |
We need to face the fact that it may still be a very long time before the majority of scientists will take seriously the idea that a designer may have been directly involved in the origin and development of life. However, it may not be nearly so long before they will at least finally acknowledge that science has no clue about the “natural” causes involved. I have written a short article, submitted to several publications without success so far, which encourages readers to think about what it will be like when this happens. It will, in my opinion, be a much improved world.
Here begins the article, entitled “How Evolution Will Be Taught Someday”:
A 1980 New York Times News Service article, reporting on a meeting at the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History of “nearly all the leading evolutionists in paleontology, population genetics, taxonomy and related fields”, begins:
Biology’s understanding of how evolution works, which has long postulated a gradual process of Darwinian natural selection acting on genetic mutations, is undergoing its broadest and deepest revolution in nearly 50 years. At the heart of the revolution is something that might seem a paradox. Recent discoveries have only strengthened Darwin’s epochal conclusion that all forms of life evolved from a common ancestor…At the same time, however, many studies suggest that the origin of species was not the way Darwin suggested…
the rest of the article is here.
3 Responses to How Evolution Will Be Taught Someday
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
How will design be taught? Through what sacred book? Talmud? Bible? Koran?
A few words of explanation about what would supercede this pedagogy would be helpful, if you have anything.
Hi Racdale:
Perhaps you should first think about the fundamental issue at stake: whether agents make designs, and whether we can by examinaiton of hte empirical data in certain given cases, credibly distinguish agent action and chance plus necessity without agent action.
The Design inference is that this is possible and frequently done, even in the Courtroom. [For instance, when a certain preferred political party comes up trumps on election ballots 40 out of 41 times, is that chance or intent?]
In the context of Biology, let us observe a well-known contrast:
Meanwhile I suggestyou look at the introductory level discussion here [or even just in my own always linked . . .], before rushing off to the strawmannish and ad hominem-laced assumption/ assertion/ prejudice that inference to design is necessarily a religious doctrine rather than a serious scientific project.
GEM of TKI
Racdale: I believe firmly that the origin and development of life could not have happened without design; however, I will admit that I am not sure when, where or how design came into the picture. I admit that this makes teaching design in a science class problematic, and I can understand the objections to this. That is why–contrary to what you have apparently been told–most ID proponents do NOT advocate teaching ID in science classes. However, the fear that ID will fill the void if problems with Darwinism are acknowledged is no excuse for ramming such a woefully inadequate theory down the throats of biology students.
Jean Rostand, in “A Biologist’s View”, (1956) who called Darwinism “a fairy tale for adults,” says
I would not object to having Jean Rostand teaching evolution in our schools. I do strongly object to having courts decide that scientific challenges to Darwinism in the classroom are illegal, because all such challenges are religiously motivated.