[Vision2020] Mandating Religion In Science Class

[Tbertruss at aol.com]

Michael et. al.

More on the Intelligent Design/Creationism debate, referring to published 
"scientific" papers on Intelligent Design, charging Darwinists with censorship, 
and referencing Behe:


http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXIV/Issue_8/Opinions/Opinions3.shtml

Please remember that my requirements for a scientific theory to be taught as 
established science is not just a paper or two that gets published on a given 
theory, but a rigorous verification of the theory by empirical methodology 
over time by a number of scientists.  

Recall cold fusion?  This received quite a lot of attention as though the 
theory was solid science, backed by empirical testing.  Yet over time, with 
scientists trying to replicate the results of the scientists who thought they 
really had something, cold fusion remains on the list of theories that may result 
in validation, but require more exploration, though many scientists insist it 
is laughable:

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041129/pf/041129-11_pf.html


Consider though, that cold fusion has a set of experiments that can be 
empirically investigated to continue to explore this theory.  There are charges that 
bias or ethical problems in the scientific community are leading scientists 
to ignore the facts that cold fusion may still be a workable theory, resulting 
in a usable method of deriving energy:

http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue35/ethics.html

But what are the empirical experiments that scientists can replicate and 
continue to test to determine the validity or falsehood of Intelligent 
Design/Creationism?  It is easy to point to problems with evolutionary theory and say the 
theory is flawed.  But this does not automatically mean that any other theory 
must be then viewed as valid science, minus empirical evidence gathered by 
rigorous testable and replicatable means to support an alternative theory.

I could point out gaps and problems with the Theory of Gravity, and then 
insist that we should consider the theory that what attracts mass to other masses 
is the intelligent intervention of a supreme being who does not want life to 
drift off the Earth into space, but how could such a theory be tested?  And 
should such a theory be taught as a scientific alternative in Physics classes?

Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051120/2aa20f71/attachment.htm