View Single Post
Old 11-26-2005, 12:52 AM
Posts: n/a
Default Re: \"In the beginning, there was Flying Spaghetti Monster\"

Hi zygote - To answer some of your questions....

Let me first say that the general idea of evolution is not where I focus my objections. My beef is with the teaching of the Neo-Darwinian model of evolution as essentially factual.

I would disagree that design never outmodels the Neo-Darwinian model of evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is not a matter of opinion! please give me one example.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Neo-Darwinian model falls apart so badly in explaining experimental phenomenon regarding evolution that I think 1. its more likely that a substantially better theory of evolution is the correct answer but 2. Neo-Darwinism to me is so weak the design argument is better. I have other areas in evolution theory where I would say the same thing.

The aurgument that you state where you conclude that intelligent design can only be a religious belief I don't agree with. I'm thinking of a new thread to clarify my position on this.

Out of curiousity, what are your opinions on the big bang?

[/ QUOTE ]
The big bang is a good theory. When I've discussed it in a science class I give it the thumbs up. Its the best theory out there for the origin of the Universe. Its the most organized body of knowledge presentable as a theory. I do not spend a whole lot of time on alternative ideas, but I do explain why the Big Bang is a better idea that alternatives in a few places. (I'm in the corporate world now so academics is in the past for me, but it could be in the future some day again)
But here's what I don't do with the Big Bang theory: I don't claim it's a fact.
If a student comes along with what I think is a legitimate different perspective I give credit for good analytical thought. If their reasoning is logical and supported by decent evidence then I'm not going to say they are preaching religion. On the other hand if I do get esentially religious challenges then I may take a strong position in the defense of scientific reasoning. Most of these kinds of discussions take place after class.
So I understand the defensiveness against the ID movement. But its the next generation of scientists that are going to improve our theories and advance our scientific knowledge. And they should be able to think clearly about what are facts and what are theories, what constitutes a religious belief and what constitues a scientific inquiry. Any notion of design is not in my book religion.
Reply With Quote