Your article supports my position, thank you. The fact that there are gaps in the theory of evolution doesn't argue in favor of intelligent design. It merely argues for more scientific investigation. Intelligent design, on the other hand, argues against any further investigation. Michael Behe straightforward admitted under oath that there is no point in searching for evidence of evolution because evolution cannot be correct in the face of intelligent design. But, when Dr. Behe was asked to propose a test for intelligent design, he had no answer other than to say that it can't be ruled out. My response to this is "so what?" As a scientist, Dr. Behe's job is to affirmatively prove things to support his theory of the development of life, not to merely cast doubt upon the theories of others. If Behe had ball one he would sit down and show why Schneider's program doesn't work. But, he won't, because it's so much easier to just "say" that it doesn't work. If Behe were to try to disprove/falsify Schneider's model, and he failed, then Behe would be completely up s!@# creek without a paddle. On the other hand, Schneider has ripped every one of Behe's fundamental positions to shreds via actual scientific testing. Anyone can say, "I believe what I believe and if you don't, that's tuff potatoes." Not everyone can actually prove that their position is scientifically correct. Schneider has done so, and until someone appears who can counter that position, the "science" of intelligent design is as dead as deer guts on a door knob.
The question about what to teach about the origin of life comes down to this - are we going to start teaching students at every level from junior school to tertiary in a way that is open to the possibility of an encounter with truth or are we going to continue to follow what has become the now common path in the public sphere that closes minds to the possibility of finding the truth? A definition of the evolution of life in terms of preconceived descriptors, such as unguided chance, unplanned and random variation, is not a biological definition. It is more like a mission statement for atheism masquerading as biology. Darwinists oppose the teaching of ID in the classroom but if itâs acceptable to teach atheism in the classroom, why not God also? Weâre witnessing the spectacle of some scientists who are afraid of some science. Wanting to have oneâs opponents unfairly silenced is simply bullying, a tactic adopted to avoid exposing one's beliefs to open examination. Those who are serious about finding truth canât afford to dismiss any reasonable proposal to find it and they should not embrace any unreasonable proposal. Letâs hope we can soon begin to debate calmly and honestly the implications of certain recent biological, scientific discoveries. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=115
That you would post this guy's thoughts and expect it to be taken seriously by anybody on the other side of the argument, demonstrates a distinct preference for obfuscating the issues. John Morris is the son of Henry Morris, the founding father of "creationist" science, and the Institute of Creation Research. No credible scientists takes this stuff seriously.
"Dr. Behe's job is to affirmatively prove things to support his theory of the development of life, not to merely cast doubt upon the theories of others. " Then Dr. Behe is not a scientist searching for the truth, but rather someone trying to find fact to support a pre-existing opinion. His agenda is not truth if his job is only to support one side of a case. This would be akin to suggesting that a defense attorney goes to trial to help the jury see the truth.....that's not at all what they do. No, it is through the adversarial process where both sides are presented that the jury determines the a working and reasonable truth, and in a classroom the teaching should present all sides of an issue and allow the jury, the students, to discover the truth they decide to embrace.
Your comments above are an intentional distortion of reality. Biology teachers are not instructed to teach atheism. Kenneth Miller, author of the most widely used public school biology textbooks is a Roman Catholic and he does not suggest for one second that there is not God in the universe. He simply looks at the facts which demonstrate that evolution is the driving mechanism for the development of life on Earth. There is never any discussion that God may not have designed evolution to do this task. The so called controversy is not whether evolution works, but only whether certain specifics of the evolutionary process are completely correct. There is NO controversy over whether new species develop out of a puff of smoke. If you believe that species do develop in this manner in preference to evolutionary forces, then you are promoting the teaching of magic in science class -- nothing less. I already provided you with an experiment demonstrating that members of a single species had become unable to reproduce with former members of their own taxonomic classification, by means of prolonged physical isolation, but that both isolated groups were still able to reproduce among their own. That is an evolutionary beginning for a complete divergence into two separate species, presented under laboratory conditions, and it demonstrates that evolution can and does occur, and without a puff of smoke. So, if you want to teach magic in biology class, then by all means lets talk about intelligent design. But, let's not forget astrology and alchemy, because they are all based on the exact same principle, i.e.: "I believe it's true, therefore it must be true."
Nice try, however your description of courtroom burdens of proof is incorrect as a matter of law. No one wins in court by merely impeaching the other party's case in chief. In order to win, you must prove your case by at least some infinitesimal amount greater than one half. Otherwise, while you may be able to be found not liable or not guilty, you cannot actually win and you will not be awarded any damages. So, the true adversarial process requires that both sides produce an affirmative case. Otherwise there will be no winner, and in fact, if the Plaintiff/Petitioner doesn't come forward with a case in chief, the court will eventually dismiss for lack of prosecution.
A simple test of the reality of how the world views the term "evolution." Ask 100 random people who have completed high school, having taken biology. Ask them if this drawing illustrates the theory of evolution that is taught in biology classes: <img src=http://aboutfacts.net/Ancient/Ancient12/ape-man-line-up.jpg>
Evolution does not advance a theory of no God, so by your definition, it is not atheism in practice. Evolution merely advances the theory that God didn't create the Heavens and the Earth in six days, about 6,000 years ago. So, while evolution may threaten the beliefs of fundamentalists who take the Bible/Koran, etc. literally, evolution does not threaten anyone's belief in a divine creator.