It seems he has backed off the young earth creationism he first seemed to believe. Now he just wants to be a critic. Please help me respond to this guy. Sounds like he could be convinced, maybe.
It is clear that you feel that evolution is the most fundamental scientific theory. This reveals an evolutionary bias, which is only a problem if one denies that there is a bias. Everyone is biased by their history and experience and these inevitably lead to world view assumptions which must influence one's thinking.
I would say the scientific process (though not a theory) is much more fundamental. Science is totally reliant on the ability to repeat and observe an experiment in a controlled environment. We cannot observe large scale evolution because of the huge amounts of time necessary. The most we can observe is variation within a kind (we can observe many breeds of dogs and cats) and to that extent, I believe in evolution.
However, I find Darwinian evolution (e.g. survival of the fittest) to be completely insufficient to produce observable life from nonlife. Francesco Redi disproved spontaneous generation in this way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
The Miller-Urey experiment generated amino acids in a primordial environment but this is a long way from producing life with the ability to reproduce.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
Simply having the necessary building blocks does not equate to life. Even if assembled in the proper order (a highly complex task) one would have only a dead body.
If DNA is required for evolution, how could DNA evolve?
With or without a big bang, it takes a lot of faith to believe that single living cells (let alone complex things like when wings and eyeballs) evolved by random mutation. No scientific experiment has ever produced a more complex creature by this method.
We have observed that 99.9% of all mutations are harmful or fatal to the creature.
http://library.thinkquest.org/...
However, a mutation has not produced an offspring (as far as I know) with more complex genetic information than its parent. I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of irreducible complexity?
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
If you shelter your child from shortcomings and challenges of Darwinian evolution, you cripple their knowledge of science.
If we apply the survival of the fittest to society, why should we care for the poor or disabled?
Most of the facts can be explained at least two ways. Especially the fossil record is far from indisputable. My philosophy of teaching science is to show students that there are several explanations for most phenomena, and objectivity is to be aware of all sides rather than indoctrinated with only one.
Do not expect to change your mind, or Spencer's. But if allowed, I will show him the other side of the coin. I am very familiar with evolution and have read much about it, having been educated in California.
Politics is an uncomfortable topic for me. Since I came of voting age, I have not had a candidate I could fully support; so I hold my nose and vote.
I shun TV and ride my bike to work, so I live quite free of media influence. I do not follow news or politics, but focus on what I can personally do to take good care of what's been entrusted to me; family, house, students and planet. I garden and compost, love solar and wind energy and try to honor my Maker in everything I do.
I hope you still feel that I'm a suitable teacher for your son. If I am not, let me know and other arrangements can be made.
I don't think I'll be switching teachers, but there is no way I'm letting this guy teach science to my son (we're only in this independent study program because we're moving soon, so we'll just stick to English for now).
