E-Letter responses to:

essays: Eugenie C. Scott ESSAYS ON SCIENCE AND SOCIETY: Not (Just) in Kansas Anymore Science 2000; 288: 813-815 [Summary] [Full text]

E-Letters: Submit a response to this article

Published E-Letter responses:

Don't Forget What Science Really Is

David Punshon-Smith   (7 September 2000)

Darwinian Concepts. How Relevant To Modern Science?

Philip S. Skell   (27 July 2000)

Is the Issue Evolution or Scientific Method?

Rafael Harpaz   (13 July 2000)

Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism

Michael J. Behe   (7 July 2000)

Supreme Court Ruling

Duane T. Gish   (7 July 2000)

Led by the Evidence

William K. Hartmann   (7 July 2000)

Science Is Not Philosophy or Theology

Rudy Bernard   (7 July 2000)

The Problem May Be "Public" Education

Michael O. Montgomery, MD   (6 July 2000)

A Christian Country

Bruce Simon   (5 July 2000)

Who Knows What Science Is Anyway?

Robert LaMontagne   (29 June 2000)

Re^3: Evolution, Stand on Your Own Two Feet!

Norman F. Stanley   (13 June 2000)

Re: Re: Evolution, Stand on Your Own Two Feet!

Anthony White   (9 June 2000)

Is Intelligent Design Gaining Academic Respectability?...

Norman F. Stanley   (8 June 2000)

Creation Science. . . .Isn't.

J. Alan Rosenstein   (1 June 2000)

Re: Darwin and His Theory

David Deane   (1 June 2000)

Both Can Be Taught Reasonably

Stephen Congly   (1 June 2000)

Stop the War of Words

Larry Berardinis   (1 June 2000)

Why the Paranoia?

Marvin J. Fritzler PhD MD   (1 June 2000)

Re: When the Teaching of Evolution Gets Personal

Robert Niichel   (1 June 2000)

Re: Evolution at the Chalk Face: Teaching in a Public High School

Jack Neefus   (1 June 2000)

Interests ... In This Small World

Deborah Hernandez   (31 May 2000)

Polemic Cloaked as Science Is as Bad

Peter M. Webster   (31 May 2000)

Not (Just) in Kansas

Dr. Brahama D. Sharma, Ph.D., C. Chem., FRSC (for life)   (24 May 2000)

David and Goliath

Robert Mac West   (24 May 2000)

Re: Evolution, Stand on Your Own Two Feet!

Norman F. Stanley   (24 May 2000)

Science: A Tradition of Skepticism

Ivan E. Collier   (24 May 2000)

Re: Evolution, Stand on Your Own Two Feet!

Frank Lovell   (24 May 2000)

Evolution v Creationism, Huh?

Dr. B. Colbert   (24 May 2000)

Re: Agreement and a Constitutional challenge

Donn M. Stewart, M.D.   (22 May 2000)

More credit to students

Ian Gordon   (22 May 2000)

Re: Where's the book

Norman F. Stanley   (19 May 2000)

Evolution at the Chalk Face: Teaching in a Public High School

Wes McCoy   (18 May 2000)

Social Realities: Theoretical and Explication Problems

Dennis Hollenberg   (18 May 2000)

Energy Better Spent

Tyler F. Creelan   (18 May 2000)

An Old Bone to Pick

Benjamin Jantzen   (18 May 2000)

Should Scientists Be Positive in the Creationist Debate?

Rudolf Brun   (18 May 2000)

Re: Evolution, Stand on Your Own Two Feet!

Walt Meier   (16 May 2000)

Re: Evolution, Stand on Your Own Two Feet!

Alex Rodriguez   (16 May 2000)

Where's the book

Werner G. Heim   (16 May 2000)

Darwin and His Theory

Mehmet Sen   (16 May 2000)

Agreement and a Constitutional Challenge

Charles J. Robinove   (16 May 2000)

When the Teaching of Evolution Gets Personal

Lucy E. Edwards   (15 May 2000)

Muzzling Creationists

William B. Provine   (15 May 2000)

Relation of Scott Article to the National Science Education Standards

Henry M. Paynter   (15 May 2000)

Evolution, Stand on Your Own Two Feet!

Anthony White   (12 May 2000)

Don't Lose the Middle Ground

Thomas C. Adler   (12 May 2000)

Forlorn from Kansas

Charles E. Haines Jr.   (12 May 2000)

Stand up to the Antievolutionists!

Bryon Spicci   (10 May 2000)

Teaching of Science

George N. Prince   (10 May 2000)

Don't Forget What Science Really Is 7 September 2000
David Punshon-Smith, Physicist Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Don't Forget What Science Really Is	When pondering the creationism/evolution debate, one should never forget the fact that science is not just a collection of useful facts about the universe around us, but is an intellectual methodology or tool developed to improve the reliability and trustworthiness of knowledge. One only needs to compare the track records of religion and science in explaining the functioning of our world to understand that epistemological paradigm gives us a more reliable path to certainty even if certainty can never be absolutely guaranteed. By necessity, religious arguments will always retreat back to the transcendent and the untestable Will of God, whereas science, for better or for worse, has tied itself to the rigors of the scientific method. Without saying that the former is invalid, the latter will give us a higher degree of certainty in the quality of the knowledge we seek. However, having said this, evolutionary science has not been well served by those scientists and writers who cannot easily separate in their minds what is speculation and what is reliable knowledge supported by rigorous science. The concept of laws and experiment being supplanted by corroboration of historical narrative as the new direction of science (Ernst Mayr, Sci. Am., July 2000) needs more careful analysis before it is accepted. No one disputes the difficulty of attempting to scientifically verify theories that apply to historical events, but any departure from the rigor of the epistemolgical standards of the physical sciences will result in a reduction in the reliability and quality of the knowledge obtained in any scientific investigation.
Darwinian Concepts. How Relevant To Modern Science? 27 July 2000
Philip S. Skell, Emeritus, Evan Pugh Prof. Chemistry The Pennsylvania State University Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Darwinian Concepts. How Relevant To Modern Science?	Darwinian Concepts. How Relevant To Modern Science? Philip S. Skell Emeritus, Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, 16801(tvk@psu.edu); member, National Academy of Science. Darwinist Enthusiasts, popularizers and researchers alike, have insisted over the past 140 years that his Concepts are the foundation of all biology, some maintaining it undergirds all modern scholarship. Is this a useful perspective? Does it risk creating obstacles to science funding? Evolution Theory is a broadly overarching historical theory that pertains to the developmental history of living organisms over the past 3.5 billion years. It is reasonable to examine its credentials and determine its current utility. Does it have a directive impact in the inductive, or experimental, sciences, such as Physics, Chemistry, and Biology? Despite statements in the literature that make it out to be vitally important in modern Microbiology, Neurobiology, Genetics, Plant Biology, Medicine, Surgery, Pharmaceutics, etc., I believe this assignment to evolutionary theory cannot be justified. Nobel Laureate, Francis Crick wrote: "It might be thought that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case." I am mindful of the statement of a professor at a prestigious medical school, that Darwin is not mentioned in the four-year medical program. And, another from a researcher in the pharmaceutical industry, that his company does not have a Division of Darwinian Concepts to help in making more effective their choices for future research. Over A half century ago, during WW II, I was personally associated with an antibiotics research group, engaged in the full range of activities, from finding organisms which inhibited bacterial growth to the isolation and proof of structure of the antibiotics they produced. Since then there has been astounding sophisticated advances in instrumentations and methodologies, but nonetheless persons engaged in current activities make no more use of Darwinian Concepts than in those earlier days; those Concepts do not, and did not, have a determinative impact on the conception and prosecution of the projects. Genomics is currently in the news headlines with the remarkable achievements in detailing the human genome. This technological breakthrough would have occurred regardless of one's beliefs on Darwinism. The question that must be addressed: Is the Theory mainly of overarching historical importance with modest relevance to modern research? Granted, those engaged in exhuming ancient artifacts, fossils, can claim the Concepts are "Absolutely vital" in their field of natural history. Paleontology may, with some justification claim that Evolutionary Theory provides a useful framework. To clarify the discrepancy in perceptions, I suggest that persons working in biological fields, and all other science-oriented Darwinists, enlighten us by responding to: {In your research, is design of new programs dependent upon Darwinian Concepts, in the sense that if you did not agree with its major tenets, your program would be significantly different?}. I have posed this question to 40 persons in scholarly activities, two-thirds in scientific areas, the remainder broadly across other fields, and thus far I have not had a yes response, with justification of a claim of relevance in the modern context for the heuristic importance of Darwinian Concepts. If I have not searched widely enough for relevance, there should be ample opportunity for correction of my assessment: That those overarching historical Concepts play a negligible role in most modern research programs. Can the case be made that without the Concepts there would be no research programs, no progress? To be convincing advocates must give their assessment with reference to specific research programs. The global question, "Is Darwinism important?" invites the arm-waving reply: "Absolutely, vital!!". Vital to one's world view perhaps, but vital to particular research programs? Science may be best served by maintaining a wall-of-separation between its inductive/experimental activities and disputes regarding world-views, a separation from the extremists of both varieties. It is one thing for atheists to use science to support or lend respectability (as Richard Dawkins has put it) to their views. It is another for atheists to advance their views under the banner "Thus Speaks Science!". Illustrative of the current relevance of this matter is the response of the "Science Community" to the recent events in Kansas. Their Board indicated they would not include in their state-wide final exams questions on three subjects: 1. Origin of Life from a primordial soup, 2. Micro-evolution entails Macro-evolution, and 3. Big Bang origin of the Universe. They made no restriction on teaching these matters, nor any requirement or recommendation, as often claimed, that Creationism be taught; the old standards, dating from 1995, had much less about evolution in them than the new standards. Each of these subjects omitted from the state-wide exams is part of ancient natural history, arguably of questionable relevance to the graduating high school senior. One must wonder at the distorted perspectives that provoked the "Science Community" to such disproportionate responses, including remarks in some reputable publications, recommending that Kansas graduates be denied admissions to colleges and universities. Why all this fuss in the science community? Let us recognize that the debate between the extremes on both sides has only marginal relevance to modern scientific activities, and if the debate is continued in the current intemperate manner, they may be putting at risk the future funding of vital activities. The Congress, a microcosm of the "general public", holds the purse strings! While we are all vastly indebted to the science community for the excellence of their scholarly activities, this does not give members of our community the right to breach the Wall-of-Separation and to use, as a pulpit, our public schools for indoctrination with their religious or antireligious views. The political route may be the only means by which the attention of the Enthusiasts can be gained, to encourage them to desist from conflating their metaphysical world-views with the science they do so capably. If that route is taken we will all suffer.
Is the Issue Evolution or Scientific Method? 13 July 2000
Rafael Harpaz, Medical Epidemiologist Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Is the Issue Evolution or Scientific Method?	In her Essay, Scott raises concerns about the wide-spread rejection of evolution by the American public. It would, however, be a small victory indeed if students were well-versed in collections of facts, or even in explanatory models, dutifully memorized and accepted "on faith." Through education, our students should instead learn and assimilate scientific method - that empiric process, based on observation, hypothesis testing, and inference, by which future Darwins could then arrive at their own, scientifically derived organizing principles. Rejection of evolution is an ambiguous example of what plagues scientific understanding in the United States. Many persons may accept the general concepts of evolution, but might cringe when asked to respond to a survey question specifically geared to the question of human creation, seeing it as a litmus test for atheism: I suspect, for instance, that many of the 47% of American respondents stating their belief in creation of man some 10,000 years ago whole-heartedly accept the existence of dinosaurs during the Jurassic Period (analogously, I suspect many of the 40% of scientists responding that evolution was guided by God viewed that question as a litmus test for atheism, and would only be able to amplify on their responses in the most ambiguous terms). Evolution may certainly be a major organizing principle of science, yet all but those who study evolutionary sciences are likely familiar with just a trivial handful of data-points relating to the issue. I, myself, have a hard time fathoming how evolution could produce the nuanced, highly complex, yet seemingly modestly adaptive features evident in the biological world, particularly when viewed along side such glaring, highly maladaptive examples in biology as the high maternal and infant mortality in pre-industrial human societies. Although I certainly don't reject evolution on the basis of these examples, as a scientist I recognize that my acceptance is, to a degree, based on "faith," and must properly allow for Divine guidance, at least until such time that I seek and obtain clarifying, scientifically derived proof.
Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism 7 July 2000
Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biological Sciences Lehigh University Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism	Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book "Darwin's Black Box" (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God." Where I and others run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology is not invisible, it is empirically detectable. The biological literature is replete with statements like David DeRosier's in the journal "Cell": "More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human" (1). Exactly why is it a thought-crime to make the case that such observations may be on to something objectively correct? Scott blames "frontier," "nonhierarchical" religions for the controversy in biology education in the United States. As a member of the decidedly hierarchical, mainstream Roman Catholic Church, I think a better candidate for blame is the policing of orthodoxy by the NCSE and others—abetting lawsuits to suppress discussion of truly open questions and decrying academic advocates of intelligent design for "organiz[ing] conferences" and "writ[ing] op-ed pieces and books." Among a lot of religious citizens, who aren't quite the yahoos evolutionists often seems to think they are, such activities raise doubts that the issues are being fairly presented, which might then cause some people to doubt the veracity of scientists in other areas too. Ironically, the activity of Scott and the NCSE might itself be promoting the mistrust of science they deplore. 1. David J. DeRosier, Cell 93, 17 (1998).
Supreme Court Ruling 7 July 2000
Duane T. Gish, Senior Vice President Institute for Creation Research, P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021 Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Supreme Court Ruling	In her Essay, Scott says "the Supreme Court has ruled that teaching creationism and creation 'science' are unconstitutional." In a letter published in Nature (1) in 1987, after the Supreme Court decision on the Louisiana equal time legislation, Scott said "the Supreme Court decision says only that the Louisiana law violates the constitutional separation of church and state; it does not say that no one can teach scientific creationism--and unfortunately many individual teachers do." These statements appear to be contradictory. Which one is true? In an article published in 1987 in the New York Times Magazine (2), Stephen Jay Gould says "Creationists claim their law broadened the freedom of teachers by permitting the introduction of controversial material. But no statute exists in any state to bar instruction in 'creation science'. It could be taught before, and it can be taught now." Michael Zimmerman in Bioscience in 1987 says "The Supreme Court ruling did not, in any way, outlaw the teaching of 'creation science' in public school classrooms. Quite simply it ruled that in the form taken by the Louisiana law, it is unconstitutional to demand equal time for this particular subject. 'Creation science' can still be brought into science classrooms if and when teachers and administrators feel it is appropriate." By Scott's own words, the concurrence of Gould and Zimmerman, and a reading of the Supreme Court's decision concerning the Louisiana law, it seems clear that the decision did not declare that teaching scientific evidence that supports creation in public school classrooms is unconstitutional and thus prohibited. This false notion is incessantly repeated by those who adamantly oppose such educational activities. As Richard Lewontin has rightly stated, evolution and creationism are irreconcilable worldviews. When each is stripped down to the bare bones, each is intrinsically religious. Although they constitute inferences based on circumstantial evidence, the evidence supporting each is by nature scientific and should be made available to students in the tax-supported public schools of our pluralistic democratic society. References 1. E. Scott, Nature 329, 282 (1987). 2. S. J. Gould, "The verdict on creationism," New York Times Mag. (19 July 1987), p. 34. 3. M. Zimmerman, Bioscience 37 (no. 9), 635 (1987).
Led by the Evidence 7 July 2000
William K. Hartmann, Senior Scientist Planetary Science Institute Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Led by the Evidence	Scott's article correctly stresses the threat to science from widespread antievolution sentiment. As we have seen here in Arizona, the threat is no longer just to biological evolution, but to principles of stellar evolution, including a long age for Earth and the evidence for a Big Bang event. The "e-word" now provokes a knee-jerk reaction, regardless of context. The complaint against the fascinating evidence for a Big Bang event is particularly ironic and illuminating. If any piece of modern astronomy could be welcomed by creationists, it should be the Big Bang theory. The fact that it is under attack is evidence, in my opinion, that fundamentalists are not interested in content or ideas, but are simply against science and scientists. They are ready to feel their beliefs insulted at every turn. Therefore, it is important to discuss a principle that is perhaps inadequately addressed by Scott, but that has served science so well for the last 600 years. Scientists and educators should not present this material as "here are the facts -- and the other guys are wrong," or let science be depicted as a set of chosen beliefs. Rather, we must, simply, point out that it is evidence that leads to scientific ideas. Indeed, evidence forces scientists and their critics to adopt evolutionary models of both biological and astronomical systems, after several centuries of vigorous debate. Thus, much of the current controversy could be reduced by teaching the history and (dare I say?) evolution of the scientific ideas themselves, rather than merely presenting them as "known facts" or even "established theory." What is needed in the classroom is a clearer presentation of how evidence has forced scholars of many countries, many generations, and many ideologies to where we are in our understanding of nature.
Science Is Not Philosophy or Theology 7 July 2000
Rudy Bernard, Professor Michigan State University Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Science Is Not Philosophy or Theology	I think part of the problem arises from thinking/teaching that science can explain eveything. Science is necessarily materialist in its methodology and in the scope of what is studied (the natural world). It does not necessarily follow that science encompasses all of reality or that science can answer all the questions that humans have about the nature of reality. Science has given us amazing knowledge about the universe, and I am privileged to have spent my life in science, but there are many important things that science is not equipped to deal with. Many writers have used evolutionary theory as an argument against God and religion in general, but this is to take science beyond its realm of competence. It is important not to confuse science with philosophy or theology or to deny the valid role of these areas of thought. I find no opposition between my belief in a Creator God and evolution. Scientists need to spread that word more widely to nonscientists, to the general public. Ken Miller has written a wonderful book on this topic, "Finding Darwin's God," in which he masterfully refutes the intelligent design and irreducible complexity arguments while upholding a religious view. Not all religious people are fundamentalists, nor are all scientists philosophical materialists.
The Problem May Be "Public" Education 6 July 2000
Michael O. Montgomery, MD, Physician-Scientist Respond to this E-Letter: Re: The Problem May Be "Public" Education	Let me first state that I believe that the basic theory of evolution is true. What that really means is that I accept the tenet that "natural selection" is the driving force of evolutionary change. Evolution (changing forms) has not been strenuously opposed for quite some time, as pointed out in one of the dEbate responses. However, there are certain biases in Scott's Essay that have not previously been addressed. A key quote is "Some of these assemblies violate the U.S. Constitution's requirement that schools be religiously neutral." The U.S. Constitution actually rquires no such thing. It, in some interpretations, forbids public schools from promoting a particular religion or religious doctrine or idea. It has been suggested that a founding strength of the United States was the "unique settlement and religious history of our nation." The original decentralized nature of our educational systems and religious beliefs was, perhaps, a crucial element in the development of a free, decentralized society with many belief systems and general tolerance among these systems. One of the issues that divides many communities of belief is the current "winner-take-all" attitude of a publically financed and run educational system. What is the problem with instituting a true free choice system of schooling and allowing those who wish to educate their children in the theories of evolution (or flat Earth for that matter) to do so? This would also allow people like myself to send my son to a school that specifically teaches what I call Science. We might then see a form of cultural evolution in action. It would be interesting to see what outcomes would be generated by such a system of free choice. Are we afraid that we would lose in this jungle and become extinct?
A Christian Country 5 July 2000
Bruce Simon, Ph.D. Respond to this E-Letter: Re: A Christian Country	I agree with the position taken by Scott on the creationism versus evolution debate, but I would like to raise a point she does not touch on in her Essay. If creationists feel that the science behind the theory of evolution is inadequate compared with other theories of science, to the extent that alternative theories should be presented, fine. However, which creationist theory do you present? The Hindus, Ancient Greeks and Romans, Norse, American Indians, Polynesians, etc. all have their versions of creation that differ significantly from that of the Old Testament. Should they all be taught in a science class along with evolution as possible alternative theories? Of course not. The real issue is that creationists are threatened by any theory that is in conflict with a literal interpretation of the Bible. They do not want their children to get mixed messages that would threaten their religious teachings. So, why don't we just change the Constitution, make this officially a Christian country, and then the church can determine what will and won't be taught in schools, and most of the population will be happy.
Who Knows What Science Is Anyway? 29 June 2000
Robert LaMontagne, Physics Instructor Providence college Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Who Knows What Science Is Anyway?	I think that the reason school districts are having a problem with evolution versus creationism is that most people have nothing to draw on to argue that evolution is science and creationism is not. High school science courses do not emphasize the technique of thinking scientifically. They are merely memorization courses in which a student moves from chapter to chapter ingesting a catalog of names and relationships. There is very little in the texts that explains why relationships exist. If these same students move on to college, they invariably meet their science requirements by taking biology, which requires more memorization than thinking. Most colleges even structure their introductory biology courses into large lecture formats, which lend themselves to memory work and not to reasoned analysis. It is of little surprise that graduates with this background cannot tell the difference between real science and what is offered by creationists. If two groups of authorities ask someone to memorize their version of "science," how would one know, or why would they care to know, which is correct? The natural tendency is to take a middle road and to memorize a bit of each. Unless we educate people in science by requiring them to take physics (and some chemistry) to instill in them a sense that science is analytical thinking and not memorization, we cannot expect them to see the difference between the evolution theory and creatioism. Unfortunately, we reap what we sow.
Re^3: Evolution, Stand on Your Own Two Feet! 13 June 2000
Norman F. Stanley, Retired chemist Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Re^3: Evolution, Stand on Your Own Two Feet!	Anthony White cites three areas wherein he considers the theory of evolution to be inadequate. Howevwer, his criticisms seem to be directed not at the theory per se (that is, neodarwinism) but at less tractable issues such as the nature of the universe and abiogenesis. To consider these briefly: (1) The "fine-tuning" argument for design of the universe is a metaphysical, not a scientific, proposition. Metaphysical speculation is seldom amenable to scientific investigation. Assigning a probability to the existence of our spacetime assumes that it had a temporal cause, which seems a contradiction in terms. We must take comfort in the common observation that it does, in fact, exist and leave it at that. (2) Far from being "laughable," the Miller-Urey experiments were seminal in demonstrating the formation of amino acids under prebiotic conditions. They are easily duplicated in the laboratory with simple apparatus. Prebiotic chemistry has hardly stood still since their time. Syntheses of peptides, lipids, and nucleotides have been demonstrated under conditions similar to those prevailing in the abiotic era. These molecules have been shown to assemble into structures suggestive of proto-cells. Research into self-replicating molecules has developed rapidly during the past decade. Viruses and prions illustrate that the distinction between life and nonlife is fuzzy. Whether viruses or other simple organisms can be synthesized in the foreseeable future is uncertain, but I am inclined to be optimistic. (3) The second law applies to closed systems.
Re: Re: Evolution, Stand on Your Own Two Feet! 9 June 2000
Anthony White, Lay-science reader Sales Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Re: Re: Evolution, Stand on Your Own Two Feet!	What arrogance to assume that the American public is unable to grasp a theory that everyone has been instructed in since grade school. Doesn't the American public consist of scientists, doctors, lawyers, businessmen, teachers, and mathematicians, all of whom are college graduates and educated people? I assure you we are not as ignorant of Darwin's theory as you seem to suppose. There are a host of holes in the theory of evolution. (1) Many different scientist's calculations demonstrate that the formation of life by accidental processes is mathematically impossible. (a) Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the probability to be 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power. (b) Penrose calculated that, to provide for a universe compatible with the second law of thermodynamics, the precision required to set the universe on its highly ordered course was to an accuracy of 1 in 10 to the 10(123)power. Do the math! That's more than all the protons, neutrons, and every other particle in the known universe. Paul Davies calculated that the matching of the explosive force of the big bang and gravity was one in 10 to the 60 power. (c) When Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds against the precise matching required to form a single carbon atom through the triple alpha process, he said the answer dramatically disturbed his atheism. He went on to say that the number calculated from the facts are so overwhelming as to put the conclusion that a superintellect had monkeyed with the physics almost beyond question. (2) The Miller and Urey line of experiments are laughable, yet it is still in the current college text books as fact. (a) According to Hubert Yockey, in so far as chance plays a role in the probability that even a very short protein, let alone a genome, could emerge from a primeval soup, if ever it existed, even with the help of a "deux ex machina" for 10 to the 9 power light years is so small that it requires the "faith of Job" to believe it. He also called the prebiotic soup a failed paradigm. (b) Fred Hoyle and Wickramasingh concluded that life could not have appeared by Earth-bound random processes even if the whole universe consisted of primeval soup. (3) What was the method of generating information content into inorganic matter? (a) The second law of thermodynamics states that any spontaneous process in such a system will result in an increase in disorder or entropy. (b) Time's arrow points in the direction of equilibrium, demonstrating that in any spontaneous change the amount of (free energy) decreases and randomness increases. The more time, the greater the entropy . Therefore, life could not develop in such processes. (c) Energy alone is not sufficient to support abiogenisis. Many in the scientific community are aware of these numbers but their ideological beliefs prevent them from seeing the forest for the trees. It is normally accepted within the scientific community that anything less than one in 10 to the 50 power is a mathematical impossibility. Stop being robots and "let evolution stand on its own two feet."
Is Intelligent Design Gaining Academic Respectability?... 8 June 2000
Norman F. Stanley, Retired chemist Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Is Intelligent Design Gaining Academic Respectability?...	...It appears that it is. Proponents of intelligent design (ID) boast that their theories are getting consideration in academic circles and will inevitably prevail over "materialistic" Darwinism. Baylor University houses the Michael Polanyi Center that supports research into ID. Conferences devoted to ID are being held under academic auspices. ID proponents, led by Phillip Johnson, promote a "wedge" strategy aimed at creating a division between empirical (read "open-minded") science, which considers all possible causes, and materialistic (read "dogmatic") science, which rejects nonmaterial, unobservable causes. I think this dichotomy is false, since the history of science shows that empirical investigation has invariably led to the rejection of the unobservable (e.g., phlogiston) in favor of material causes. Yet many inside and outside of academia find this sort of distinction enticing, particularly in the light of seemingly dogmatic statements found in popular Darwinist literature. What impact will this have on science education? I fear that it will undermine the previously successful strategy of challenging creationism in the curriculum on church-state grounds. ID proponents will argue from authority that ID is science, and the courts may be persuaded.
Creation Science. . . .Isn't. 1 June 2000
J. Alan Rosenstein, Assistant Biologist Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Creation Science. . . .Isn't.	It would appear to me that the difficulty facing the teaching of creationism as a science is twofold: First, it is not a science, but rather a philosophy/theology based on unquestioning faith in a scripture. Regardless of how it is packaged, regardless of all the attempts to legitimize it as a science using tactics such as the second law of thermodynamics for example, it is still a belief system, not true scientific knowledge garnered by the strict protocol of observation, experimentation, and verification. Second, the creationists ignore the many other creation beliefs found in cultures worldwide across time and place, adhering only to the beliefs gleaned from a literal biblical reading. This can be easily construed not as simple dissemination of information, but as proselytization, which is not allowed in the American public schools, which, of course, would offend those of non-Christian beliefs in these supposedly "religion-neutral" learning environments. One may advocate teaching all creation beliefs in a philisophy, history, or comparative culture course without emphasizing one as "morally superior" or "more nearly the truth" over any other. The objection I have is the insistance by some that creation be taught as a science in science classes alongside evolution in tax-supported public schools.
Re: Darwin and His Theory 1 June 2000
David Deane, not relevant none Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Re: Darwin and His Theory	Mehmet Sen says in his debate "Darwin and his theory" that the debate about evolution is "meaningless." I agree that this is true as regards his contribution to the debate, which is nothing more than a collection of meaningless statements and claims and illogical conclusions involving unobservable "referents." How can one "win" against such a nonargument?
Both Can Be Taught Reasonably 1 June 2000
Stephen Congly, Undergraduate student University of Regina Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Both Can Be Taught Reasonably	Scott's Essay brought up memories on how my biology professors dealt with this topic in the introductory biology class; I thought his approach was reasonable. Essentially, what he said was that evolution was a theory. However, the term "theory" in scientific circles had a different connotation than it does to the layperson. A scientific theory is essentially all but fact (science cannot prove things, but rather disproves them). (See "Biology," 5th ed., by Campbell et al. for a better definition of theory.) He continued by stating that evolution and creationism could coexist. Darwin's theory cannot disprove creationism; however, scientists typically reject creationism as a theory because it cannot be subject to the rigours of the scientific method unlike the theory of creationism. This approach seemed to me to be quite fair; addressing both sides of the debate while at the same time teaching the fundamentals of evolution.
Stop the War of Words 1 June 2000
Larry Berardinis, Engineer/Technical writer Penton Media Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Stop the War of Words	All points well made. But I find it ironic that, in expressing her frustration, Scott uses far more words than the surprisingly few verses in the Bible (on creation) over which this whole tempest is about. In fact, the very nature of the creation vs. evolution debate -- a dozen or so passages standing alone against page after page, volume after volume, and course after course -- indicates that this is an unresolvable dilemma. It's like trying to catch an atom with a butterfly net. Let it go. There are better things to chase. Instead of arguing over whose theory or philosophy is more worthy of being taught, perhaps our public servants should put that aside and focus on teaching basic skills like reading, math, writing, and applied science. If there's any time (and money) left over, maybe we can also try to instill in our future generation such things as self-worth and the value of life.
Why the Paranoia? 1 June 2000
Marvin J. Fritzler PhD MD, cell biologist/university professor University of Calgary, Faculty of Medicine Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Why the Paranoia?	I agree with some of the principles espoused by Scott over the past few months but disagree with the rhetoric in her Essay. The innuendo in this Essay does little to advance discussion, debate, or understanding. "Wild type" and "mutant" metaphors are poorly considered in light of the history of the two lines of thinking. Sweeping statements like "Biologists have rejected irreducible complexity, and philosophers have been similarly unresponsive..." are rhetorical distortions. By this statement and others in her Essay, Scott seems to do science (of which she is a spokesperson) a disservice. Exactly what are we afraid of? How many biologists or philosophers have openly studied the concept of intelligent design (Demski) or irreducible complexity (Behe)? Personally, I find the concepts fascinating and congruent with my understanding and observations. Indeed, Demski calls for research to prove or disprove the concept of intelligent design. As a cell and molecular biologist, the notion that interacting complex systems 'evolved' through mutation and natural selection leaves me concerned that an overarching concept of evolution does not explain what I see in the lab or in published scientific journals. For scientists that believe there needs to be more political action to protect the higher ground. Shouldn't we be reassured that 'natural selection' will (eventually) triumph? I suppose that the failure to gain a more substantial foothold in the nonscientific American community over the past century suggests that, despite something that can be hardly considered a 'neutralist' approach, we should reflect more deeply than merely calling for more political action and further standardization of biology teaching materials.
Re: When the Teaching of Evolution Gets Personal 1 June 2000
Robert Niichel, Student Monticello High School Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Re: When the Teaching of Evolution Gets Personal	I was somewhat perturbed by Edwards' comments in her dEbate, "When the Teaching of Evolution Gets Personal." To begin, what does an antibiotic-resistant bacteria have to do with the veracity of evolution? It seems to me that understanding that the antibiotic is not working is simply a matter of observation, rather than an understanding of the theory of evolution. Being trained in the theory of evolution will not aid anyone in prescribing medication; that requires the comprehension of more than 2000 years of medical knowledge. It is quite possible that I misunderstood Edwards, and I am wrong, but I thought that I might offer this food for thought. Second, I would like to discuss the implications of evolution on our modern world. What does evolution mean for us in the future? I believe that the religion of the majority of the people determines a country's government, including the people that run the government, the laws they pass, and the values that they hold. Without a god or a higher being, truth becomes relative. If and when truth becomes relative, the government cannot stand. With every lawyer that finds a loophole, our country falls farther away from the standards that it once held. One may argue that our country is not as great as we make it out to be, with a history of slavery and the persecution of Japanese-Americans during World War II, but we did have certain standards that everyone could live by, and a certain standard to judge others in their wrongdoings. I realize that this statement neither proves nor discredits either of the theories in question. This debate, I think, is not based on science, but on the philosophies of every American, and therefore should be taken from a philosophical point of view. If I am incorrect, please tell me why.
Re: Evolution at the Chalk Face: Teaching in a Public High School 1 June 2000
Jack Neefus, Product Manager Bell Atlantic Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Re: Evolution at the Chalk Face: Teaching in a Public High School	In college, I was a fundamentalist Christian and read creationist literature. I encountered few people, professors or students, who showed the wisdom or maturity that McCoy recommends for responding to creationists in his dEbate "Evolution at the Chalk Face: Teaching in a Public High School." To combat creationism, the respect and clarity he shows are essential. People with creationist sympathies are not necessarily willfully shutting their eyes. They have read arguments that make sense but have not been adequately addressed. They have seen evolution taught repeatedly as fact, but without the proof provided for other scientific phenomena. This is especially true of college students or nonscientists who do not have much biological experience to draw from. To explain the fossil record, creationist literature is filled with 'theories' that are false but often inventive, and may actually have a ring of plausibility to the layman. It is important to acknowledge that these ideas could be scientific theories, and a discipline could be developed around them, if they proved to be true. However, most do not stand up under examination, and no one would dare investigate or develop them further, because their absurdity would become apparent. The real proof of evolution cannot be quickly passed on -- it is the consistent, overwhelming agreement of the progression and the diversification of life forms in the fossil record. Ironically, to combat creationism, I think it is important to acknowledge as facts, not flaws, that (a) evolution is not proven in the usual sense, and (b) the current mechanisms are inadequate in explaining the rapid changes in species. We are still learning the details and filling in the blanks. But over the last century and a half, the pieces have fallen into place more and more rapidly.
Interests ... In This Small World 31 May 2000
Deborah Hernandez, Chemist and Physicist Christian Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Interests ... In This Small World	What is to be taught to our future citizens? At present they are taught much information, and science is explained as "fact" when the ideas are constantly being revised. It has been said that science should be taught as the history of science in order to leave it open to changes. In history we clearly see that our nation is based on the freedom to worship God, who made the world. Therefore, creation is not taught on the basis of human "evidence," but on the basis of a belief in God as creator. On the other hand, believing in evolution is believing that material existed, and somehow by itself (or perhaps with a divine beginning) it developed order and life that man himself cannot imitate. So which is easier to believe? Which makes more sense?
Polemic Cloaked as Science Is as Bad 31 May 2000
Peter M. Webster, Physician University of Toronto Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Polemic Cloaked as Science Is as Bad	I agree with what Scott says but regret what she didn't say. As a scientist and a Christian, I am embroiled in this debate regularly, and I believe there is an important moral issue involved. Christian parents are seeing their children taught promiscuity in the name of science, and, unable to demonstrate the errors in the science, parents feel obligated to undermine its authority. The foundation of sex education in our schools is Kinsey's travesty of science, truly a polemic in the cloak of science. If the scientific community were willing to disown Kinsey and the hierarchy of sex education in favor of scientific information on reproductive behavior, bonding, and the hazardous nature of promiscuity, one might have a chance of getting through to Christians of good will. I find it personally distressing that what science has discovered of God's creative genius answers one of the deepest mysteries of Christian doctrine -- free will and sovereign power. The question "How can a just judge condemn a creature of His own confection?" is answered by evolution and quantum mechanics. To judge a creature, one needs an arm's length procedure, evolution, and a mechanism guaranteeing freedom -- indeterminacy. If the scientific community could see that science developed as an effort to understand the Creator by studying His handywork and thrived in the culture of mutual trust inspired by the concept that we are each and all made in His Image rather than taking each new discovery as an excuse to deny God, we wouldn't be seeing such bizarre behavior from people who feel strongly and intuitively that the universe is not devoid of meaning.
Not (Just) in Kansas 24 May 2000
Dr. Brahama D. Sharma, Ph.D., C. Chem., FRSC (for life), Prof. of Chemistry (retired) N/A Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Not (Just) in Kansas	We need to get to the heart of the problem. As long as boards of education continue to have authority to micromanage the content of classroom curriculum, which should be the sole responsibility of the qualified teacher, we will have such debates. The issue is not evolution versus creationism. That is a facade under which these boards function to propagate Protestant, archaic views. Let us remind ourselves that there was a time when wise men held that (1) solar eclipses were associated with devils, (2) the sun went around Earth, (3) rains were the fury of the gods, (4) tornadoes were the fury of God's emissary against evil, and (5) diseases were the way God cleansed Earth of evil human beings (AIDS has been cited as punishment by God). One can cite many such explanations as based on fear. Any thoughts about the scientific explanation of the origin of species are taken by believers of archaic wisdom as attacks on God, and thus as immoral. Most children are exposed to the view of creationism long before formal education, thus it is a culture shock when they are confronted with evolution. Let us also not ignore that the scientific community has been known to convulsively react to novel breakthroughs. This same psychological reaction by education boards is to be expected. The job before us is not to decry the boards; rather, it is to start in earnest to educate the citizenry, especially editors, reporters, columnists, and of course those who aspire to be in politics or public service.
David and Goliath 24 May 2000
Robert Mac West, Museum consultant; Paleontologist Informal Learning Experiences, Inc. Respond to this E-Letter: Re: David and Goliath	Scott mentions several of the creationist organizations that are promoting both strict biblical interpretations and intelligent design. What she does not mention are the formidable pocketbooks and messianic zeal of those organizations. The National Center for Science Education (NCSE), on whose board I sit, is a five-person operation with a budget of a couple hundred thousand dollars. It virtually single-handedly takes on the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, and thousands of churches. Substantial amounts of money (many millions) pour into these organizations from religious and political conservatives; American scientists contribute very little in support of the NCSE's battle to preserve the core of contemporary science. In a nation where dollars produce political results -- and this is a political discussion as much as it is a scientific and religious one-- it is little wonder that the voice of science is not heard as well as the voice of creationism.
Re: Evolution, Stand on Your Own Two Feet! 24 May 2000
Norman F. Stanley, Retired chemist Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Re: Evolution, Stand on Your Own Two Feet!	In response to the dEbate "Evolution, stand on your own two feet," creationists like to counter evolutionists with the claim that evolution, as well as creationism, involves an element of faith. I see the question as not one of faith, but of scientific rigor. All alternatives to Darwinian, undirected evolution necessarily involve a source of direction -- something that seems to be absent in the laws of nature as revealed by observation. In other words, to postulate a director or designer at any stage of the theory is to postulate a miracle. Invoking miracles has no place in scientific methodology. That, to me, seems a fatal philosophical flaw; isn't it far better to leave unanswered questions provisionally unanswered and continue investigating? This is aside from methodological flaws and factual errors, and they are numerous, as pointed out in published critiques of such theories.
Science: A Tradition of Skepticism 24 May 2000
Ivan E. Collier, Molecular biologist Washington University School of Medicine Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Science: A Tradition of Skepticism	Biblical literalism is a culture of faith and unquestioning acceptance of dogma. Science is a culture, not just of free inquiry, but of doubt and skepticism as well. The skeptical tradition in science means that all scientific explanation, no matter how well tested, is theory. To present a scientific explanation, whether it be quantum electrodynamics or evolution, without the context of skepticism invites contempt and risks establishing scientific literalism. If an audience cannot appreciate that the word "theory" does not mean "just one person's opinion" in thoughtful discourse, then how likely is it that they will understand quantum electrodynamics or evolution?
Re: Evolution, Stand on Your Own Two Feet! 24 May 2000
Frank Lovell, Manager GE Appliances Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Re: Evolution, Stand on Your Own Two Feet!	In his dEbate "Evolution, stand on your own two feet," White says, "People are talking about evolution and creationism because none of the other scientific issues is as vulnerable. Gravity, the first and second laws of thermodynamics, or general and special relativity are not constantly on the "hot seat." Maybe the theory of evolution is flawed. It is no closer to being incontrovertibly proven in the hearts and minds of the American populous than when it was first introduced. This speaks volumes." It speaks volumes indeed -- about the colossal failure of science education in America! Evolution is no more on the "hot seat" within the scientific community than any other scientific theory. The nonscientific public is talking about evolution and creationism not because evolution is a "more vulnerable" scientific theory than special relativity, gravity, or thermodynamics. Rather, because the public does not know and understand the theory of evolution (what it says and does not say), they are not familiar with the abundant, diverse empirical evidence that corroborates it. They also do not understand what scientific theories are (and are not). For instance, a scientific theory is never properly regarded as "incontrovertibly proven," as White suggests. Evolution is in the "hot seat" outside of the scientific community for political and psychological/religious reasons that cannot ameliorate until public school science teachers (and the textbooks they use) begin to educate our young citizens about evolution and the breathtaking range of empirical evidence that supports it, as they do with other scientific theories. The wide gap between what scientists and the general public embrace about evolution does imply scientists' certainty about evolution, but it reflects on the teaching (or lack thereof) of evolution in public schools. If evolution is indeed a flawed scientific theory, it will take scientists with evidence to undo it, not rhetoric waged by a public that remains largely ignorant about the facts and theory of evolution. In the time since evolution was first introduced, it has evolved into one of the most thoroughly corroborated, unifying, and accepted theories within the scientific community. Let the teaching begin!
Evolution v Creationism, Huh? 24 May 2000
Dr. B. Colbert, Mathematican Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Evolution v Creationism, Huh?	The big bang theory was initially rejected because it was perceived to be "religiously based" and theistic. This clearly demonstrates that to claim to be against a religiously based view of the world does not mean that one is objective and free from error. Outside the United States, most people are somewhat amused at the rather vexed debate between creationism and evolutionism. Alternative interpretations of Genesis given by creationists have been accepted by orthodox Christianity for more than 1600 years. One only has to read Saint Augustine's "De Civitate Dei" to appreciate that Christians have interpreted "days" to be many years. Even the tracts of the creationists support this interpretation. What is more important is how these theories are taught. Unfortunately, the latest theory, be it evolutionary or creationist, is taught as absolute undeniable fact, in the same way one might teach children that Caesar conquered Gaul or how to whack a cricket ball. When the next year comes, the next theory is taught in the same manner. Instead, the uncertainty and open questions surrounding both theories should be presented. Scott's essay seems to have the same faults that Scott finds with "fundamentalists." Scott cites several authors to dismiss views that she opposes. How is this different from "fundamentalists" quoting the Bible? As a postscript, I do not share Scott's rather rosy view of a highly centralized education system. Such centralization was brought into Europe by military dictators and tyrants. It has resulted in the destruction of minority languages and cultures, such as Langue d'Oc, Breton, Welsh, Irish, and many others. In some cases, it was a criminal offense to speak these languages, and children were punished and publicly humiliated in schools for doing so. "Scientific" reasons justified this treatment of children.
Re: Agreement and a Constitutional challenge 22 May 2000
Donn M. Stewart, M.D., Clinical Fellow Metabolism Branch, NCI, NIH Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Re: Agreement and a Constitutional challenge	Charles Robinove (see dEbate, below) points out what is unstated in most of the arguments that center around the evolutionist/creationist controversies: that creationism is a Christian movement. Why should this be? It is because the core idea of evolution, that all living things are related by descent, contradicts the core beliefs of historical Christianity. Can evolutionists accomodate the possibilty of creation events in their world view? Scott mentions the Gallup poll in which 40% of scientists agree that evolution occured, but was guided by God. What constitutes this "guiding"? Could God have created species that later evolved? Or, is evolution the belief that common descent is the only possible explanation for all biological phenomena? A strict insistence that no creation events have ever occurred in the history of Earth is as dogmatic as the most severe creationist position.
More credit to students 22 May 2000
Ian Gordon, Librarian Brock University Respond to this E-Letter: Re: More credit to students	We should give more credit to students and their abilities to think through and debate matters of social, scientific, religious, and philosophical origin than we currently allow. To state that "Allowing creationism a voice within a public school curriculum smacks of religious instruction" puts teachers, students and parents at a disadvantage. It is equally unfair to paint all scientists who believe in evolution with the label of "secular humanist." There is no such thing as an unbiased opinion. We all have our own persepectives. What we have is a debate where Christians (and other beliefs) have felt that they have been marginalized. In a true democratic environment we should allow for an open debate within the classroom. I am sure most students and teachers are willing to move forward and debate these issues if religious and civil liberties organizations would join the debate rather than threatening a democratic process. P.S. This text and any opinions expressed are personal and do not reflect those of my present employer.
Re: Where's the book 19 May 2000
Norman F. Stanley, retired chemist Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Re: Where's the book	I would nominate the recently published third edition of Strickberger, "Evolution," (Jones & Bartlett, 2000 (ISBN 0-7637-1066-0)). Although written for college undergraduates, it's quite accessible to the interested layperson. It includes a useful section on evolution vis-á-vis religion which points out the deficiencies of the common creationist arguments.
Evolution at the Chalk Face: Teaching in a Public High School 18 May 2000
Wes McCoy, High school science chairman North Cobb High School, Kennesaw, GA Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Evolution at the Chalk Face: Teaching in a Public High School	Scott has provided a cogent and concise description of the antievolution culture I have been living and working in for these past 22 years of my teaching career. Her suggestion that the mutant allele (antievolutionism) may supplant the wild type in American culture unless opposed could not be more apt. Our public schools, in Georgia, as in other states, serve a dizzying array of individual children, many with problems and concerns that far overshadow any attempt at teaching for understanding of biological concepts. Therefore, many administrators are quite relieved when biology teachers choose to minimize or even eliminate lessons on evolution from their courses. My own state representative has told me that he would support legislation which permits or mandates the teaching of “both views” in high school biology classes, in the interest of “fairness to all.” However, he also says that state laws are unlikely to be passed, because the most effective way to introduce such a rule is through local school boards. In the midst of this political chaos, my students enter my 10th grade biology course, and my job is to educate them. I use many of the activities in the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) book "Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science," and I emphasize evolutionary principles throughout the course. I discuss evolution openly and frankly and build a rapport that supports students who may fear the very word evolution. I believe that I do an excellent job of organizing my teaching and promoting learning. So why don’t they understand evolution a year later? My genetics students have passed Biology I. They should understand evolution (particularly if I was their teacher). Here is why they usually don’t: (1) What they learn about evolution outside the classroom is fundamentally more powerful than what they learn in it. Media depictions of evolution, as in the beautiful animations seen in the film “Mission to Mars” are so striking and persuasive, that these images and ideas swamp the “step by step” learning we did in our lab. Some students wrongly assume these images to be reasonable depictions of evolution concepts. No wonder they think it absurd. (2) By and large, students believe that evolution can be equated with atheism. This view comes from the false duality of an “evolution vs. creationism debate.” Very likely, my students have heard someone with an incomplete understanding of biology explain evolution with a smug tone in their voice. Perhaps they heard someone at church decrying Darwin, giving a convoluted description of evolution that bears little resemblance to our current understanding. Perhaps they heard someone who really is an atheist, gleely denying that God had any part in the random, unguided process of evolution. The most common default position adopted by students is that evolution is “only a theory,” a thought echoed by school boards throughout this country. This view minimizes the explanatory power of evolution theory and reduces teachers to the role of disk jockeys playing one theory after another, implying that there is little or no real evidence for evolution. I fear that views like these will become the majority opinion in this country. What can scientists do to help stem this tide? (1) Please take time to explain what you mean by evolution. A few sentences should do it. Don’t just say the word and expect everyone to know what you mean. (2) Please do not scoff at people who do not believe in evolution. They probably don’t know what evolution really means. Some scientists, like Kenneth Miller at Brown University, have done an excellent job explaining that religion and evolution do not oppose each other any more than religion and chemistry. Many people have no idea that they can accept evolution and still believe in a Creator God. (3) Make an effort to explain science to the general public, however small. The antievolution forces seem to be confused on multiple levels, from astronomy and geology, to nuclear chemistry and meteorology. ANY science you can help American citizens understand can change attitudes. Everyone in your building may understand evolution, but look out your window. That’s where most Americans live, work, and raise their children. Teachers like me need your help very much.
Social Realities: Theoretical and Explication Problems 18 May 2000
Dennis Hollenberg, designer n/a Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Social Realities: Theoretical and Explication Problems	The current problems attending this topic can be reduced to the times' social realities. People are manifesting social stresses brought on by rapid technological changes and the times' attendant intellectual demands. In reaction, (1) people cling to that which offers them the greatest security; (2) they have traditionally derived security from religions; (3) Darwinian theory is too vague and, therefore, too difficult to grasp (exacerbated by the inevitably poor explication in all literature, examples of which I discuss below) relative to the (vacuous) simplicity of "old -time re