Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site petrus.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!petrus!hammond From: hammond@petrus.UUCP Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: How to fill a vacuum Message-ID: <239@petrus.UUCP> Date: Fri, 21-Dec-84 08:01:44 EST Article-I.D.: petrus.239 Posted: Fri Dec 21 08:01:44 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 22-Dec-84 01:12:45 EST References: ihuxl.1451 <496@syteka.UUCP> Organization: Bell Communications Research, Inc Lines: 35 > Creationists are filling a need of the semi-literate of this country > and the world. The teaching of rigorous analytic techniques and > adherence to honesty as an integral, and inseparable, partt of the > scientific method has been put on the shelf in our elementary and > high schools, and worst of all in our universities and colleges. My original followup focused on the statement about the scientist never saying anything without qualifying it as "current theory." In general I agree that the problem is the lack of understanding of how to think through a problem, compounded by lack of time/resources. The average person simply doesn't have the time to read up on all the scientific literature and earn a living. At best, they keep marginally informed about things outside their field. To do so, they trust the writings of scientists. If someone, claiming to be a scientist, tells them something, they have no reason not to believe him/her until/unless they find out the truth is otherwise. A similar situation pertains to my car. I trust the mechanic to find and fix the problems until I have evidence that he can't. That evidence is not always immediately obvious. I submit the same thing is happening with creationism, that the pseudo-scientific publications of the creationists are accepted for lack of a reason not to and that if you move in creationist circles you might never find the opposing views/information presented. I propose that we abandon teaching evolution and creation science in the public schools and concentrate on teaching how to think. One can take an engineering view of biology and study the way things function without needing evolution. Eventually, when we teach enough students to think and with the invevitable reductions in the average work week and increase in information availability we will reach a point where many more people will have the time and ability to study the issues. Then evolution vs creationism might be better debated. Rich Hammond [decvax, ihnp4] bellcore!hammond