Re: paleonet ID in the Classroom

[Peter Paul Smolka <smolka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, bivalve wrote:

> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:57:10 -0500
> From: bivalve <bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com>
> Reply-To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
> To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: paleonet ID in the Classroom
>
> >  >No.  The modern IDers insist that there are some features of life
> >  >(bacterial flagella, metabolic pathways etc) or the Universe
> >  >(supposedly fine-tuned for life) that can not be explained by
> >  >evolution/naturalism.  Therefore, "True" science must include
> >  >supernaturalism.
>
> The current ID movement insists on the impossibility of evolutionary continuity (at least most of the time; consistency is not a priority).  Thus, they generally reject the claim that there is a purpose woven into the history of nature; rather, they claim that there is a purpose inserted into or imposed on nature.

I personally regard the ID vs. evolution issue not as too relevant to
the question.

Reason: As long as the findings remain as they are, e.g. million years,
gravitational acceleration 9.81 m/sec**2 it does not matter whether
above number is a result of nature or the result of nature following
an unknown plan.

This compares to discussing the "bank-automat-theorem":

Wether the bank-notes are placed into the automat by the bank clearks,
whether they are printed there instantenously or whether inside the
bank automat a human sits is irrelevant to the user. He/she needs to
know his/her PIN and the sum to take.

For those who have problems with the geological timescale as much
golden bridges should be built as possible (see my DD1 to DD7
suggestion) also tyring to find out where communicative
misunderstandings might exist.

Reason: If 6000 years as age of the earth might become a common-place
then in the future proposals might be rejected because they use
a time-scale ranging beyond that, such as into the Neogene.

If somebody says: "Well done geologists", "you found out what god
laid out before" it does not change the results.

Even if an ID-ler says: "The Chicxulub impact crater is placed so
nicely,
well positioned, one half on land, to make drilling cheap, one half
in the ocean, to make seismic presite-survey affordable, even such
that right in the Holocene when humans got able to study it, the
sealevel was optimized", I would not have any problem as the geology
is by this not changed.

If a person would say: "The results of the Yaxcopil-1 drillsite are
entirely wrong because they always mention ages around 65 m.y.",
e.g. well above 6000 years, I would have a problem with such a view.

Thus I propose to leave the ID-lers in peace and to focus pragmatically
on addressing (didactical hints in the previous replies) on
communicative misunderstandings (age of the earth, flood, religion,
what to do better in light of the knowledge of the 21st century).

The DD1 to DD7 scheme might suit well for the IMAX thing: Just a
stratigraphical table as we know it plus the DD1 to DD7 units showing
to N./S. Carolina people: No problem with religion.


Best regards, Peter

>

**********************************************************************
Dr. Peter P. Smolka
University Muenster
Geological Institute
Corrensstr. 24
D-48149 Muenster

Tel.: +49/251/833-3989   +49/2533/4401
Fax:  +49/251/833-3989   +49/2533/4401
E-Mail: smolka@uni-muenster.de
E-Mail: PSmolka@T-Online.de
**********************************************************************