Originally posted by Viss1:
Originally posted by cjbaldw:
When any critic of evolution demands empirical evidence, neo-Darwinists just assume the creative power of natural selection and employ it to explain whatever change or lack of change has been observed, or they avoid the test by responding that scientists are discovering alternative mechanisms which relegate selection to a less important role (which fundamentally changes Darwins original theory BTW). The "fact" of evolution therefore remains unquestioned, even if there is a certain amount of healthy debate about the theory.
...the purpose of neo-Darwinism is to persuade the public to believe that there is no purposeful intelligence that transcends the natural world
Interesting post. But I don't see the above being relevant to high-school curricula.
The point is that evolution is presented as fact in most curriculum, when it should not be given it is empirically impossible to demonstrate the science and we should not hesitate to teach this material as such. It is not fact, and much of the actual empirical evidence when looked at objectively shows exactly that. Granted, one could argue that science is not entirely empirical, as there are certain basic theories that we cannot prove, yet are fundamental to basic scientific principles. Overall, scientific naturalism has produced a "colored glasses" effect within the scientific community, in so far as if you approach empirical evidence looking for what you want to find, i.e. with a preconceived prejudice, oftentimes you will find it, but that doesn't mean the science is correct. This is the entire reason for double blind studies in the pharma industry, we need to be doing something similar when it comes to scientific naturalism and evolution at this point. What are we really afraid of in so doing?
| 
