(This is extremely long. PLEASE do not rerecommend the full text. Thanks.)

First Email:

On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 16:07 -0600, Tom Cross wrote:
] Jonathan S. Shapiro writes:
] Suppose the creationists had come to the school system(s) and said
] "Evolution is a theory. Creationism (or whatever the name) is also a
] theory. Neither theory has conclusively been shown, and therefore we
] feel strongly that the creationist theory deserves equal attention in
] the curriculum."
]
] Scientists would surely have gnashed their teeth at this position for
] quite some time, but after a certain amount of useless resistance they
] would have been forced to accept it. It is a proposition articulated
] using the values of science, and it would ultimately be hypocritical for
] science to reject this proposition framed in this form.

This proposition is certainly not articulated using the values of science. It is
a perfect example of the semantic slight of hand that is being performed by the
Intelligent Design crowd.

Evolution is a theory. Creationism is not a theory. Creationism is a hypothesis.
There is a significant difference between these two things.

Theories have reproducible experimental evidence. Widely accepted theories have
a large body of such evidence that has been peer reviewed and withstood serious
criticism. A hypothesis is simply viable idea that has little or no experimental
evidence. Creationism is a hypothesis.

In everyday speech the word theory is used to refer to both theories and
hypotheses, and so to the uneducated reader it is easy to confuse the two
concepts and decide that Evolution and Intelligent Design are on equal footing
conceptually. They are not. However, the ID community is taking advantage of
this confusion to promote their adgenda in political circles, where it doesn't
really matter if people know what they are talking about so long as they agree
with you.

] So what we have is one side with an open (or at least potentially and
] reluctantly openable) view and another side that is determined to
] destroy that view.

This is exactly the arguement that the creationists are now making, through
intelligent design; that they simply want their point of view accepted along
side evolution but the scientific community views them as heretics and whats to
destroy them.

What is at stake is, in fact, the ability to teach critical thinking. If we put
Intelligent Design on equal footing in science class with Evolution, what we
are saying is that a hypothesis matures into a theory when it has a large body
of reproducible experimental evidence that has undergone significant peer
review, or when the idea is sufficiently politically popular that it must be
accepted even if there is no evidence to support it. This is exactly t... [ Read More (0.9k in body) ]