RufusAtticus

From the DI's open letter:

"In recent years, a growing number of scientists have raised significant issues that challenge various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory. "

That is why we keep using the same three names year after year.

Jayjay

Asst. Prof. of Urban and Community Forestry:

"As an assistant professor of urban and community forestry, I can guarantee you that there's no forest here. All I see is a bunch of trees."

wdog

I have met james tour and he is a competent scientist. sometimes I do wonder why all these bright people are so religious, but then that is sort of argument from authority anyway. I wish I knew him better, because I would ask anyone of those people to honestly list scientific weaknesses of ID also.

Is that even possible? How would one list the scientific strengths and weaknesses of a theory that isn't really scientific?

Albion

Um - published in which particular respected venues? And respected by whom? The answers to those questions might go some way to showing whether these criticisms are based on religion or science.

Albion

Check out the 22 August entry here. Quite apart from explaining what kinesiology is, it provides a link to a page written by James Tour about his religious beliefs.

Coragyps

Oh, wow, Albion! Thanks!
Your link leads on to this one, a slightly edited version of the DI letter I linked to above.

Well, dammit, the link won't work, so here it is:
--------------------------------------------------
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE TEXAS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

Dear Members of the State Board of Education:

We support the requirement in the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills [TEKS] that students learn how to �analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information,� and we urge that this requirement be applied to all scientific theories being taught in high schools. We urge that high school textbooks not be limited only to those foundations of science that all citizens of a democracy should know. Thus, we believe that it is crucial that students learn that there are alternatives to Einstein�s theory of gravitation, that there is a problem of consistency between quantum field theory and general relativity. In the interest of accuracy we insist that textbooks do not mention Newton�s laws of motion or Dalton�s atomic models without pointing out that they are false.

Given our great respect for accuracy in science, we are concerned how biology textbooks used in state schools present the subjects of chemical and biological evolution. In recent years, a growing number of scientists have raised significant issues that challenge various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory. So far, these scientists have been professors of kinesiology, housing research, marketing, agricultural education, family medicine, and the like. Thus far we have not been able to find a knowledgeable or prominent biologist but we are trying very hard. Nevertheless, we think the best science education will present students with both �the strengths and weaknesses� of neo-Darwinian theory. We urge the Board to make sure that textbooks mention all alternatives to standard evolutionary theory including Raelianism, Intelligent Design, and Young Earth Creationism.

We also urge that textbooks mention all proponents and critics of each individual theory. In particular, since our main interest is in evolutionary theory, we urge that textbooks detail the political, religious, and financial backgrounds of organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which supports that theory, and the Discovery Institute, which opposes it.



Sincerely,


Sahotra Sarkar.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarkar is a professor of philosophy and of biology at the University of Texas.

atheist_in_foxhole

It's happening in Wyoming, too.

Full article

Albion

Maybe NCSE could get 23 biology professors to write a letter too. Wonder if there are 23 biology professors called Steve in Texas.

Gregg

Sigh...what's it going to take? I mean, how many times do we have to go through this B.S.? Don't these people read or study ANYTHING before they come up with these inane proposals? "Evolution is 'only' a theory, not a fact..."; "...'all' scientific theories of origin..."; "...lack of scientific evidence in support of the theory of evolution..."

It doesn't make me want to bang my head against a brick wall. It makes me want to bang THEIR heads against a brick wall. Perhaps that would crack their thick skulls and let a little light in.

Gregg

wdog

Newton's laws of motion are not false, we all understand what their limits are ONCE we go on and get a real science education. Teaching Newton's laws in the context they are usually presented is not false. Will somebody please stop this man, he thinks he knows something.