I disagree with Stephen Nichols characterization of the evolution/creation
debate. Besides ultimate origins--which many evolutionists do not get
into--much of what is disputed by creationists concerns the nuts and bolts
of how old the world is. In all the debates I have had with creationists
over the years, there is indeed a rejection of basic physics, specifically,
the physics behind the demonstrable, measurable, repeatable results of
radiometric dating (carbon 14 and K-Ar).

There is also a common fallacy evident in Stephen's statement concerning
fact and theory. Contrary to most popular versions of these terms, fact and
theory are not arranged on a gradient of certainty, with the former being
reliable and the latter suspect. As with any other science, evolutionary
theory (such as Darwinian natural selection) is used to explain
evolutionary fact (such as extinction and speciation appearing in the
fossil record). That evolution has occurred in undeniable. What's
interesting is how it occurred.

Nick

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Nicholas Honerkamp, Ph.D.
Acting Head, Sociology, Anthropology, & Geography
Director, Institute of Archaeology
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
615 McCallie Avenue
Chattanooga, TN 37403-2598
423.425.2374  / fax 423.425.2251
[log in to unmask]  http://www.utc.edu/Faculty/Nick-Honerkamp/

  At 02:15 PM 2/24/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>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