Facts vs speculation

Posted by Carlos on June 22, 1998 at 11:22:26:

In Reply to: Separate fact from speculation posted by David A. Lunde on June 21, 1998 at 21:05:54:

David A. Lunde said:

Why doesn't anybody just propose to just tell our kids the truth? Why are no biology teachers brave enough to separate fact from speculation? Like the fact that many biological systems are irreducibly complex and could not have evolved. Things like the eyeball. And not just that, but the internal mechanisms present to process the information. There are many more I won't list.

Your "fact" that the eye and other systems are irreducibly complex and could not have evolved would be regarded by most scientists as pure speculation. Taking the eye for example, many scientists have shown viable evolutionary paths for vision. Since you don't seem to care for the Talk Origins site, I refer you to the books of Richard Dawkins. If memory serves, a chapter in The Blind Watchmaker is devoted to the eye.

I'm not asking that creation be taught in the public schools. I just want the teachers to draw a definite line between hard facts and pure speculation. And if you don't KNOW the answers. Just say so.

As much as you would like it to be so, there will never be a "definite line" between fact and speculation. Scientific inquiry occurs along a continuum between those two extremes. Scientists are generally not afraid of saying they don't know, or that something hasn't been proved or demonstrated. It seems to be those of religious leanings who have the all-knowing attitude far more than scientists or skeptics.

And if you ALREADY believe that life came from non-life and matter came from non-matter, just go to the Talk Origins Home Page (where speculation is passed off as fact) for support.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to share some specific objections to items on the site. You are also free to e-mail your concerns to Talk Origins, and they will publish a response.