Dear Dr. Sheldon:
Thank you very much for sending me your thoughtful commentary
regarding AGU's efforts. I have forwarded your remarks to the panel
members for their consumption. I appreciate your taking the time to
write, and will transmit to you any additional comments in the near
future.
Sincerely,
Pete Folger
On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Bob Hazen wrote:
Dear Dr. Sheldon:
Peter Folger of AGU forwarded your thoughtful e-mail to the members of the
AGU committee that is addressing the statement about evolution. While my
views differ somewhat from yours, I am very sympathetic to the concept that
scientists, in general, are unsophisticated and ill-eqipped to debate
matters of theology and philosophy. I think we would be ill advised as a
scientific society to debate matters such as the nature of religion.
I would like to ask your advice on one aspect of this issue, however. Many
commentators on the evolution vs. creationism debate consider science and
religion as different "ways of knowing." Is it fair to say the following:
"Truth" in science ideally arises from independently verifiable
observations, reproducible experiments, and mathematical reasoning; every
law or theory in science is subject to modification based on new
observations, experiments, or analysis.
"Truth" in relgion ideally is based on belief and revelation and is not
subject to modification based on external evidence.
I realize that these definitions are too restrictive. Most scientists are
strongly swayed by beliefs (they believe, for example, that verifiable
observations and reproducible experiments have meaning). Most theologians,
similarly, bring a pragmatic flexibility to their readings of sacred texts.
But, given, this context, I strongly feel that the scientific discussion of
evolution, including the many forms of observational evidence that are
consistent with it, should be part of every science curriculum. Students
should understand the logical, empirical process by which most scientists
arrived at an acceptance of evolution. They should not be expected to
believe in evolution, but they should be expected to understand the
reasoning process - the process of critical thinking. Done correctly, each
student can come to his or her own conclusions about personal beliefs.
Creationism in its most public and restrictive form, on the other hand,
starts with an immutable premise of a ~10,000-year old earth, miraculous
creation event, etc. and looks exclusively for supporting evidence. In my
book that's not science, and should not be part of a science curriculum.
I'd appreciate your thoughts.
Best regards,
Bob Hazen
TOP
Comments? E-mail r*bs@rbsp.info
Due to spamming, delete asterisk.