At :26, commentator said, " ... the law allows Creationism to be taught in Louisian public schools ... "
This raises the question, is evolution by natural selection (random mutations that happen to improve a fitness coefficient) all we need to consider to account for ALL taxonomic progressions? Or there even a remote possibility that there was gene tweaking at key points in the past? If so, it cannot be ignored by science, due merely to a possible religious inference to some.
This is teleology by the way, and NOT Creationism, which consists solely of interjecting religious precepts in place of scientific data. Design inferences, if validated, would then be considered valid data.
In essence, that constitutes ID, which if it fails subsequent validation (research and statistical analyses that may ensue), adds support to the current evolutionary synthesis. If design inferences pervade however, then one may conclude that taxonomic progressions have been directed, at least in part. This would not constitute religion, however, since no dogma, rituals, or a priori beliefs would follow, except if one chose to accept any on a personal basis (pick your religion).
Bottom line: IF, and the 'if' is tentative, if ID is allowed discourse, then perhaps down the road a piece it will be allowed into science curriculae (and research programs) as an investigative hypothesis. But never will religion per se be discussed within a science class, since it could never pass constitutional muster. So people, 'where's the beef?'. In short, there is none.
leebowman May 26, 2011
at 9:47pm
At :26, commentator said, " ... the law allows Creationism to be taught in Louisian public schools ... "
This raises the question, is evolution by natural selection (random mutations that happen to improve a fitness coefficient) all we need to consider to account for ALL taxonomic progressions? Or there even a remote possibility that there was gene tweaking at key points in the past? If so, it cannot be ignored by science, due merely to a possible religious inference to some.
This is teleology by the way, and NOT Creationism, which consists solely of interjecting religious precepts in place of scientific data. Design inferences, if validated, would then be considered valid data.
In essence, that constitutes ID, which if it fails subsequent validation (research and statistical analyses that may ensue), adds support to the current evolutionary synthesis. If design inferences pervade however, then one may conclude that taxonomic progressions have been directed, at least in part. This would not constitute religion, however, since no dogma, rituals, or a priori beliefs would follow, except if one chose to accept any on a personal basis (pick your religion).
Bottom line: IF, and the 'if' is tentative, if ID is allowed discourse, then perhaps down the road a piece it will be allowed into science curriculae (and research programs) as an investigative hypothesis. But never will religion per se be discussed within a science class, since it could never pass constitutional muster. So people, 'where's the beef?'. In short, there is none.