I must say that I find Dr. Nichols posting deeply insulting and
indicative of an incredibly narrow view of science.  As an
evolutionary biologist and paleontologist interested in
"macroevolutionary" questions, I can assure Dr. Nichols and the other
readers of this list that Evolutionary Biology is no mere
metaphysical slight of hand masquerading as real science.  It is
every bit as robust as the laboratory sciences for which Dr. Nichols
professes his support.  Although of course evolutionary history
itself is not "repeatable" (any more than any other historical
sequence), the observations upon which we base our understanding of
evolution are as "repeatable" and "demonstrable" as those of the
laboratory sciences.  You need not accept my word alone in this
matter.  I would urge you to visit www.ncse.org, where you can view
the National Academy of Science's report on Evolution, or the
testimonials from nearly every major scientific society in this
country.  All affirm the position of evolutionary thoery as one of
the seminal ideas in modern science, and an idea as well supported as
the atomic theory of matter, gravitational theory, or any of a select
group of other ideas that form the cornerstone of modern scientific
thought.  Ultimately, I find comments like those of Dr. Nichols,
suggesting "my science is better than your science," to be
unproductive and pointless, and I would urge him to more careful
consideration before making such statements in a public forum like
Raven.

Tim Gaudin

>While reading through a week's worth of email, I ran across a few lines
>in one of Richard's emails on the "academic freedom bill" that I find to
>be a bit misinformed.  Granted, I understand Richard's main concern, but
>I feel the need to clear up the topic.
>
>Richard expresses concern over a student "objecting to evolution in a
>biology class without equal time to creationism or a law of physics
>rather than God's law in an engineering course."  Why would creationists
>object to a law of physics?  Creationists do not have a problem with
>demonstrable, measurable, repeatable science (e.g. physics, chemistry,
>genetics).  Instead, they disagree with the metaphysical theories
>about the historic origin of time, space, and life (e.g. macro-
>evolutionary theories--punctuated equilibrium, neo-Darwinian evolution)
>which are increasingly taught as fact instead of theory.
>
>Stephen
>
>
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject:     [UTCSTAFF] Student Complaints
>Date:     Mon, 21 Feb 2005 13:43:07 -0500
>From:     Richard Rice <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To:     Richard Rice <[log in to unmask]>
>To:     [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>If you are interested in the proposed "academic freedom bill" in the
>legislature, you should be if you are teaching arts, social sciences,
>history, literature...other subjects are not targeted, although one can
>imagine a single student objecting to evolution in a biology class without
>equal time to creationism, or a law of physics rather than God's law in an
>engineering course. You can find out more about this growing national
>movement by looking at their web site:
>
>http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/
>
>
>On this website is their 71 page Student Handbook with advice about
>organizing, publicity, press releases, and in Appendix D a Complaint Form
>for filing violations. Do not take this lightly; if the
>legislation becomes law, you will have to worry about introducing new and
>possibly controversial ideas in your classes that may create a "hostile
>environment" if a student so feels. Note the leading questions in the
>complaint form.
>
>Richard Rice


--
Timothy J. Gaudin, Ph.D.
Department of Biological &
        Environmental Sciences (Dept. 2653)
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
615 McCallie Avenue
Chattanooga, TN   37403-2598
Ph: (423) 425-4163     FAX: (423) 425-2285
e-mail: [log in to unmask]