Writing assignment:
 

Write a short 1-2 page response to one of the following questions:
 

A.  Is the theme of the origin-of-life exhibit at the Albuquerque Museum of Natural History "GAS+ENERGY=DNA" a helpful simplification for nonexperts or a violation of scientific integrity?  Does it represent scientific knowledge or a logical deduction based on a philosophical commitment to naturalism?  Considering the challenge of simplifying scientific concepts without compromising scientific integrity when communicating to the public, can you propose some principles or guidelines for this endeavor?  What do you think a museum should communicate regarding the current status of scientific knowledge in this area?
 

 B.  Prof. Bratermann viewed the origin of the starting materials and homochirality as questions that have been "dismissed".  Prof. de Duve also dismissed the first issue in his lecture.  On the other hand, Shapiro, Davies, Kenyon, Poenie, Schaefer, and Denton all view these as very formidable unsolved problems.  It is one thing for scientists to favor different hypotheses, it is quite another to disagree about whether or not a problem has been solved.  If scientific investigation is an objective process, from where does this subjectivity arise?  How can knowledgeable experts disagree on whether or not a problem has been solved?  What would be required for an objective determination that these problems have been solved?  Has that criteria been met?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Required readings:
 

"Darwin’s Black Box",  Michael Behe, preface, Chap 1, Chap 2.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Optional readings (links on the class website:   http://www.unm.edu/~hdelaney/iccounter.html):

exchanges on the mousetrap analogy