A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
November 30, 2004Teachin' EvolutionThe school board in the town of Dover, Pennsylvania has voted to require the teaching of Intelligent Design in place of the standard scientific curriculum on evolution. Bicoastal city slickers are likely to take this as evidence of the low intelligence of middle America (though this town near Gettysburg, is in a blue state). As a matter of fact, however, I am somewhat sympathetic to their views. The truth is that evolution is a FACT, not a theory. It is confirmed by many independent fields of science, with the addition of evidence from molecular biology in the last half-century being the capstone. My pappy, way back, was an ape. However, the means by which nature produced evolution are not well-understood, and are often overtaught in science curriculula. In the 1970's, I was taught that the accumulation of slow changes over eons of time was sufficient to explain evolution. Nowadays, this is no longer considered sufficient. An inportant new theory is punctuated equilibrium, whereby long periods of stability are punctuated by rapid changes which occur in response to catastrophic changes in the environment, such as the collision of the Earth with a comet which some believe brought about the end of the dinosaurs. The proposed mechanisms by which the fact of evolution occurred are indeed theories. I'm not yet persuaded that Intelligent Design will contribute anything positive to science. I doubt scientists will ever get to the point of being stumped, and say, "Yep, God needed to come in with some supernatural magic to give us those trilobites." Whatever did happen will, by definition, have been natural. But ID is right when it tries to make scientists more humble, pointing out problems in current explanations of evolution. The literal Biblical account has no factual basis and belief in it is purely a matter of faith. It cannot be taught in schools without violating the prohibition on the establishment of religion. For the Biblical account to have occurred, God would have to have created dinosaur fossils in the ground 6000 years ago, and carefullly designed the DNA of various species to that it looked like they had diverged over time. Such a God would have the heart of a forger. But the intelligence and beauty displayed by nature as it has evolved is such that it remains an open question whether some element of design may be behind it. Posted by rickheller at November 30, 2004 11:27 AMComments
The truth is that evolution is a FACT, not a theory. I am not a creationist, but I must disagree with your statement. Micro-Evolution has been observed as 'survival of the fittest'. There is some evidence that supports the theory of Macro-Evolution. Without being able to experiment and successfully reproduce Macro-Evolution in the lab though, we must still consider it a theory. It is probably the best theory we have, but until we can observe macro-evolution in nature (not likely for another 5000 years or so), or can reproduce macro-evolution in the labs, it is no more than a widely accepted theory. I have no problem with teachers being forced to teach evolution as theory. Teachers should be helping students Question Everything, including (perhaps especially) widely accepted ideas. However, Intelligent Design has NO scientific basis, no scientific evidence (complexity of the universe is not evidence of Intelligent Design... thats a logical flaw). I cannot even fathom how a science teacher would discuss Intelligent design couched in any sort of scientific terms. Indeed, if a local area wants Intelligent Design taught, they should start a Philosophy class, not co-opt the science class. Otherwise, it's like asking the Math Teacher to add lectures on Sophism to the lesson plan. Ratatosk Posted by: ratatosk at November 30, 2004 12:09 PMRick: We've had several discussions at PK about the ID and Evolution in schools. Kev has argued the ID/Evolution thing in depth and knows oodles about it. But even Kev (who I think embraces ID) believes that Evolution is the preeminent scientific belief and if ID is included it should not be taught as an equal to Evolution. Just an alternative theory. You could go over and ask him to be sure. This is symptomatic, IMO, of the work rightwing conservatives have done in the last two decades to permeate government at all levels, including school boards. It will take a long time to reverse the damage they're doing. Posted by: carla at November 30, 2004 12:22 PMI can't figure out from a cursory look what it is exactly that Intelligent Design teaches. But if I'd ever understood or liked natural sciences, I probably wouldn't have run away to law school. I do remember distinctly that my Mennonite high school taught both evolution and creationism objectively, and left the choice of which doctrine was true to the student. Maybe public schools lack the time to accommodate the expanded curriculum, or maybe this parallel approach is why I did so poorly in sciences in college. These stories always make me remember a t-shirt a friend occasionally wore in school that said, "I believe in the Big Bang Theory--God spoke and bang, it happened." Despite the eye-rolling of my agnostic and atheist friends, that sentiment resonates with my quasi-deist, Presbyterian view of a clockwork universe bridging free will and predestination. Posted by: The Jaded JD at November 30, 2004 12:24 PMTalkOrigins has a nice FAQ on this matter. Posted by: JonBuck at November 30, 2004 12:29 PMI think you misrepresent what a scientific theory is. A theory is supported by a large number of factual observations and is generally accepted by the scientific community precisely because it IS testable. The more testable a theory the better. I infer that you define theory as some sort of general hypothesis, or in other words, a guess. A theory in the field of science is much, much more than that; it's closer to a scientific law. I further infer the general population thinks of this misrepresented definition rather than the true definition whenever they hear the term 'theory' spoken in conjuction with evolution or science. As a former science teacher and now a medical researcher I can assure you I would be most eminently unqualified to teach ID. The reason? It isn't science. I have no problem with teaching elements of it in the public schools, just don't label it science or expect science teachers to teach it. It's like requiring an English teacher to incorporate calculus or economics into their curriculum. It wouldn't be an english class anymore, and the teacher would probably be unqualified to teach it. Posted by: tim at November 30, 2004 12:58 PMA great book on this is "Where Darwin Meets the Bible: Creationists and Evolutionists in America" Posted by: Chris at November 30, 2004 01:05 PMHere's a suggestion that could incorporate alternative theories within a scientific context. Don't just teach the facts of science, but also the method. So present the facts of evolution, present the mainstream scientific view, present ID, present the Biblical account, present Native American and Hindu myths. Then, teach the methods by which truth can be ascertained: testability of a hypothesis, Occam's razor, etc. If you follow the original link I provided, you'll see this:
So the scientific curriculum as taught is simply not getting through. I take it to mean that 45% of the population (and a similar share of voters) believe in the literal Biblical account, 38% believe in some version of Intelligent Design, and only 13% take the strict scientific viewpoint. If you've only convinced 13% after a century, you need to work on your teaching methods. Posted by: rickheller at November 30, 2004 01:15 PM I like that t-shirt! I was raised on 7 days of Creation as fact, not just biblical teaching -- at home. As as adult, I would argue the legitimacy of 7 24-hour days, but that's another argument. I do, however, accept Intelligent Design. I also accept that the concept of micro-evolution is a scientifically proven fact. I don't think that macro-evolution has moved beyond theory. I can't see why both Intelligent Design and Macro Evolution can't be taught side by side as two theories. If you want to learn more about Intelligent Design, check out these links as well: Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center Welcome Ratatosk, I've read and enjoyed many of your posts over at Totten. Rick, I disagree. Evolution is not a fact, it's a theory that has lots of supporting evidence. ID, as far as I know is not EVEN a theory, at least not in the scientific sense, because it's not testable. And as others have hinted at, the important issue here is teaching science, which at its center is the teaching of the scientific method. You start with an idea that you think may or may not be true, and then you explore the idea by looking both for evidence that supports it and that refutes it. And it may have predictive value. An evolution expert might be able to predict what a newly unearthed fossil record would look like based on his theory. Does ID do that? People who want ID in the science classroom need to prove it belongs in the science classroom because it actually is science. That's the topic. And if the people who want ID in science can't do that, but still insist on including it, then guess what? Scientists are within their rights to start showing up at churches to dispute the virgin birth, the resurrection of christ, Jonah being swallowed by the whale, the 7-day creation story, and the alleged efficacy of building an ark large enough to carry 2 of every species. Do we really want to go there? Maybe if churches aren't prepared to give equal voice to alternative explanations, we'll have to explore the elimination of public subsidy of religion via tax exemptions. You break a longstanding gentleman's agreement, and the gloves might come off. Posted by: bk at November 30, 2004 01:44 PMI'll leave the fact/theory nomenclature debate alone, except to note that when creationists say "It's only a theory" they're showing either scientific ignorance, or a great willingness to be deceitful about science. Whatever happened to that commandment about bearing false witness? My question is, which creation theory should we teach? The Pacific Native American one, whereby the balls of a giant catfish became the Sun and the Moon? The King James Genesis version? How 'bout the Zoraostrians, don't they get a voice? Creationism's only place in the schools is in comparitive religion classes, not science classes. Posted by: Tully at November 30, 2004 01:58 PMI'm going to post an execerpt from the link I posted above: In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."Posted by: JonBuck at November 30, 2004 02:00 PM "Perhaps there will be babblers who, although completely ignorant of mathematics, nevertheless take it upon themselves to pass judgement on mathematical questions and, badly distorting some passages of Scripture to their purpose, will dare find fault with my undertaking and censure it. I disregard them even to the extent as despising their criticism as unfounded." -Nicolas Copernicus on his cosmology that stated among other things, the earth is not at the center of the universe. http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Copernicus.html He probably didn't even have 13% in agreement with him. Of course, Galileo agreed, and we know how that turned out. Posted by: tim at November 30, 2004 02:45 PMI like to consider intelligent design as the evolutionary step religious zealots take from the dogmatic belief in creationism to the acceptance of evolution. But enough word play. There are gaps in the theory of evolution. Scientists don't know everything about its mechanisms and why we evolved the way we did. Those should be highlighted in the lesson plan. But we shouldn't fill in the gaps with anything but science. Sometimes the best explanation is, "I don't know." There is a role in school for discussing God's hand in the creation of life. It's called a theology course. Science courses should stick to scientific theories, including all of their shortcomings. I agree with most of the posters here. ID has, by definition, no basis in science. Whether scientists are led, by their studies, to an inclination to belief in God, that has no bearing on scientific method. Teachers, who perhaps want to use the "theories" of evolution and ID to explain the nature of scientific theories, get no argument from me. Possibly these topics, which are so explosive currently, should not be used for that purpose. Rather, I think that school boards and teachers should focus on teaching precision in thought, logic, and language first. Gould, quoted above, is being disengenuous in his language. That species have evolved is a fact. It can be scientifically proven. The method by which that happens, evolution, is a theory: that is, a hypotheses proposed to explain data. We have too little data to prove the It's Still a Theory of Evolution. Gould tries to equate the two using language. Clever, but not helpful. Much like trying to stick ID into a biology class. The accusations aimed at the Bible-Thumping Right are partially correct, I think. But I think that part of it is overreaction to the Acid-Spitting Left which has ensured that the nefarious face of anyone's God will never darken a public-school door. It's the silly and intolerant battling the silly and intolerant, and fighting it out on the back's of other people's children. Posted by: Literally Retarded at November 30, 2004 03:35 PMThe truth is that evolution is a FACT, not a theory. When I see such a comment, I cringe. And not because I'm a creationist. But because the statement is unclear and misleading. The occurrence of evolution is the closest thing we can come to "fact." However, ideas on the process by which evolution occurred is very much a theory. Incidentally, that's not meant to demean the body of scientific knowledge that attempts to understand and explain the mechanisms and mechanics involved in evolution. However, Intelligent Design has NO scientific basis, no scientific evidence (complexity of the universe is not evidence of Intelligent Design... thats a logical flaw). I cannot even fathom how a science teacher would discuss Intelligent design couched in any sort of scientific terms. Intelligent Design, like creationism itself, is not a testable hypothesis. Its proponents offer no criteria that would determine if and when something is designed and when it is not. In other words, there is nothing a priori that can predict design. Instead, a post hoc appeal to irreducible complexity is used to define design, which is completely useless when it comes to testing a hypothesis. To provide an example of how ID has no predictive component, let me post a snippet of a conversation I had online with an IDer: After giving a few examples of apparently unintelligent design, the IDer said: Why do parts of the body that do not function "optimally" as we see it disprove the existance of an intelligent designer? I don't think anyone can argue that if there is a God He can't design things however He wants whether it is what we think it should be or not. To which I replied: I would like to thank you for demonstrating why Intelligent Design is not a workable scientific hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis must be theoretically falsifiable. But, by your own words, we could never come across evidence that would invalidate ID. If we ever came across evidence that seemed to suggest a lack of design, ID proponents could say (just as you have) God can "design things however He wants whether it is what we think it should be or not." How useful is that? We don't know ahead of time what is and isn't design. But we do know in retrospect that everything is by design even if we don't think so because the "intelligent designer" can do what he wants. Are you aware of the concept of uniformitarianism and predictability? And ... If one allows "God did it" as a mechanistic "explanation" for things that seem irreducibly complex, when shall we invoke this "explanation?" After scientists have worked on a problem for five years? Ten years? Twenty years? More? Less? And, considering the possibility that it may be God's will that humanity not understand something, perhaps we should get on our knees and pray for God to guide us as to whether we should spend any time at all trying to figure out how something works. Finally, forgetting for the moment the moral hazard of using a "God did it" approach, invoking God answers nothing from a scientific standpoint. It may make for good religion, but it adds nothing to our pool of scientific knowledge. Posted by: Don T. Know at November 30, 2004 04:00 PMSaying there are "gaps" in the theory of evolution is like saying there are "gaps" in the theory of relativity or in quantum mechanics. It suggests that these "gaps" mean that the theory is flawed. In reality, all it means is that we don't know everything yet. We don't know how certain processes in the the brain functions; in that sense, there are gaps in our knowledge. It doesn't mean, however, that theories about the brain are wrong. Intelligent Design is religion, pure and simple. It is based on faith and selective interpretation of external phenomena. It is certainly possible that it could be true. But if you are going to teach intelligent design as part of a science course, then you might as well teach alchemy as part of chemistry. It makes about as much sense. Rick, to say that it remains an open question as to whether some element of design is behind nature is somewhat misleading. It remains an open question only among people who already believe in God. I don't think there is much of an open question among scientists. There simply is no way of proving (or disproving) intelligent design. So what are you going to teach? I have never said that schools should ban all expressions of religion. But IMO, it's going way too far when you start incorporating religion into academic subjects. This is what we are likely to see from the likes of Mr. Burruss (see post from yesterday). Posted by: MWS at November 30, 2004 04:39 PMRegarding fact vs. theory, archaeology presents data from prehistoric times (before the Biblical date of creation) such as the existence of walls, pottery, bones. I would regard these as facts. There is no need for written documentary evidence from this period to call its existence a fact, not a theory. Thus, the existence of an earth billions of years old, and the relationship of fossils, DNA, and other evidence is so overwhelming that I find it tendentious to call it a theory. I am not familiar with the specific curriculum proposed by the ID people, and a quick perusal of the web site didn't allow me to judge exactly what they propose to teach. I might well disagree with the specifics. The hypothesis of design is testable; it may be that the evidence suggests it is false. Any apologetics that dismisses contrary evidence as "God covering his tracks" is not fair play. I'm currently listening to an audio tape of Krakatoa and am reminded that when the theory of Continental Drift was first proposed, it was scorned by the entire scientific community. It tooks decades before any supporting mechanism could be identified. There are likely some mechanisms which contribute to evolution yet to be discovered. Posted by: rickheller at November 30, 2004 05:02 PMThe hypothesis of design is testable; But, it's not. That's the point. If it were, scientists around the world would be all over it. See my post two or three messages back. I give an example of the kind of "logic" that is used to contest examples of un-intelligent design. The reality is that the notion of design is so vague and incomplete that there is no way to disprove it. Yet, the ability to theoretically falsify an idea is precisely what makes it testable in the first place. Posted by: Don T. Know at November 30, 2004 08:02 PMRick, I've actually heard creationists pushing the Bishop Usher dating of 6000-some years answer the obvious dating evidence of millions/billions of years with "God made it that old when he created it 6000-some years ago!" Well, what can you say about a Supreme Being so insecure that he needs to backdate his reality checks..... Posted by: Tully at November 30, 2004 09:04 PM"There is no need for written documentary evidence from this period to call its existence a fact, not a theory." Please stop misusing the term "theory". Again, please stop! The existence of the pottery is a fact. Other facts utilized in determining the age of the pottery lead to a hypothesis about who made it, for what purpose, and what eventually happened to the culture. If the hypothesis can withstand rigorous research, i.e. testing, and gain general acceptance, then you have a theory. "Thus, the existence of an earth billions of years old, and the relationship of fossils, DNA, and other evidence is so overwhelming that I find it tendentious to call it a theory." No, No, No, a thousand times NO! A theory is what you have when the scientific community accepts a certain interpretation of the data. You are murdering the definition of a scientific theory. It's painful to read. Posted by: tim at November 30, 2004 09:15 PMI am happy to murder it. This blog is not a scholarly publication, but is addressed to a popular audience. We use English the way people do. To get caught up in linguistic nuance is one of the traps that highly educated people fall into, which is one of the reason that the party of the professoriat (the Democrats) keeps losing. In common parlance, a theory is unproven or speculative. If you can't even say that evolution is a fact, you're not going to persuade anyone. While I disagree with the ID movement and am deeply troubled with the gains they are making in our public schools. I think my fellow evolutionists should look on the bright side of this. Evolution is a theory and a fact depending on the scope, Intelligent Design is only anti-Evolution. The ID proponents cannot prove the existence of a creator and therefore only work to disprove certain aspects of Evolution. This is a good thing for Evolutionary Theory because everytime an ID proponent challenges one of Evolution's missing puzzle-pieces, the Evolutionists will work to fill in the gap. Eventually ID will fade away, because it doesn't actually set out to prove anything, but merely seeks to disprove Evolution. A school of thought whose only purpose is to put an end to inquiry will stagnate and die. Public School children who embrace ID will get laughed out of their College-level Biology classes. It may seem like a waste of time for Evolutionists to fight ID, but ultimately the fight will gain Evolution more mindshare and encourage scientists to work out all of the unknowns. Do we have to use English the way people do? I've heard kids talk at the mall, and I'd rather use English the old-fashioned way. Posted by: The Jaded JD at November 30, 2004 11:59 PMRick, I vehemently disagree. You're suggesting that we eschew the details of how science understands and interprets the world for the sake of convincing people about how to understand science. With all due respect, that's nonsensical to me. As Tim points out, you're conflating data with the scientific interpretation of the data, which is a huge mistake. People are not going to properly understand science and the scientific method unless they take the minimal time and effort to understand science on science's terms. Virtually everyone who is any sort of scientist understands this. No scientist or science teacher would ever want to identify a theory as a fact, because the most important core principle of science is reliance on the scientific method, which always, always, always stresses that a given accepted theory is simply the explanation that best and most elegantly explains the vast and growing body of data that has been studied. Always. Theory itself grows and evolves. The thing is, what you are calling "tendentious" is really just scientists being scientific. And that means making sure your audience understands the way that science approaches the world. You're dismissing as a subtlety the very thing that lies at the core of the discipline. Scientific method is the heart and soul of science, and it insists that you make clear and careful distinctions between the data and the explanations of it. To do otherwise is somethng of a cardinal sin to scientists. Scientists well understand humbleness before the world, and unwavering conditionality of theory in explaining observed phenomena. Historically, scientists who have committed the cardinal sin of hubristically assuming a theory as fact have been punished by new data too many times for scientists to think otherwise. You may not realize it , but it's as though you've gone into the church of science and suggested that their bible is optional. Posted by: bk at December 1, 2004 08:55 AMRick: As a person who is not so highly educated to admit a mistake I mean no disrespect. However, this isn't linguistic nuance. You have entirely redefined, with a high degree of inaccuracy the meaning of a scientific theory. While perhaps the ID proponents are more likely to be Republican or conservative, I don't know or care. I was aware that my professor was wrong 20 years ago when he told us science education majors that the teaching of evolution in the public schools was a settled issue. I knew it wasn't then, so I don't consider myself to be locked in the ivory tower on this issue. But the whole point of education is to convey knowledge, along with the ability to apply it. You can't keep presenting a widely accepted scientific theory as speculative because most nonscience people don't understand the term. Dumbing things down has never been the right way to go. And while this isn't a scholarly site, it should at least be dedicated to accuracy. Your inaccurate usage is damaging. Posted by: tim at December 1, 2004 09:06 AMRick, I've actually heard creationists pushing the Bishop Usher dating of 6000-some years answer the obvious dating evidence of millions/billions of years with "God made it that old when he created it 6000-some years ago!" Well, what can you say about a Supreme Being so insecure that he needs to backdate his reality checks..... I believe in God. I just don't believe in the God of the creationists, who make Him out to be this clever, sinister Being that is in the business of constantly "testing our faith." Could God have made a 6,000 years old universe appear to be millions of years old? Sure. He also could have created the universe one second ago and implanted in us all our memories making us believe we've existed for as long as we think we have. Why the heck not? As long as we're being imaginative, every possibility is conceivable. But, the question is not conceivability. It's likelihood. While Occam's razor could certainly fail us, I tend to accept the scientific estimate of universe's age rather than dreaming up wild (untestable) theories about the Creator of the Universe being diabolic in His ways. Posted by: Don T. Know at December 1, 2004 09:13 AMThis blog is not a scholarly publication, but is addressed to a popular audience. We use English the way people do. To get caught up in linguistic nuance is one of the traps that highly educated people fall into, which is one of the reason that the party of the professoriat (the Democrats) keeps losing. "linguistic nuance"? Newsflash: Science is neither democratic nor faddish. Science is dumbed down enough in America without imposing on it the need to adapt to the popular culture's vocabulary. What's next, expecting science to use the term "kind" instead of "species?" If someone doesn't know what "theory" means in the context of science, they should stay out of scientific discussions altogether. You don't go into somebody else's professional field (e.g. engineering) and demand or expect those professional to adapt to your language. You either learn to communicate like an engineer or you stay the hell out of engineering conversations. Ditto for doctors, lawyers, etc. Posted by: Don T. Know at December 1, 2004 09:22 AMVery well said, Tim and BK. The creationists use the disconnect between the scientific and ordinary meaning of "theory" to create a controversy that doesn't exist. It's totally disingenuous. They take advantage of the fact that many people want to use "common sense" to explain the world. I have nothing but respect for those who believe in God, but I have nothing but disrespect for people who are willing to distort reality to propagate their ideas. Posted by: MWS at December 1, 2004 09:31 AMPerhaps we're getting caught up in nomenclature here. What I'm saying this that when scientists use the word "theory" to describe evolution, people hear what scientists mean when they say "hypothesis" I'm not saying that the curriculum should say that evolution is speculative. Just the opposite. I'm saying when scientists say "they theory of evolution" people hear "the evolution hypothesis which even I don't have enough confidence in to say is fact" Evolution was known well before Darwin. Darwin proposed the theory of natural selection to account for evolution. I insist that evolution is fact, and "natural selection" is the theory which accounts for it pretty well, though it has gaps. I actually think that letting ID into the schoolhouse door might be helpful in weaning people away from literalism. What's really important here? That people learn that the Bible is not literally true, and therefore that other judgements of the Bible, like the "abomination of homosexuality" may also not be true. ID accepts evolution, and could therefore be a potential ally to liberal thinking. Posted by: rickheller at December 1, 2004 10:43 AMJust to play devils advocate for a moment.... The idea that an Omnipotent Creator could have created the entire earth/universe from whole cloth 6,000 years ago complete with pre-aged fossils, artifacts, etc is an arguement that IS entirely logicaly consistant with the evidence. It's not science....since there is no way to possibly falsify it.....but that doesn't mean it can't actualy be factual. Occams Razor is a nice tool, but we know from abundant real world examples that it sometimes fails. The simplist explanation is the most PROBABLE but it doesn't always happen to turn out to be the one which is FACTUAL. Heck, I can even think of a plausable rationalization why an Omnipotent Creater might have done something like that.... if you were an Ominpotent Being intent on providing your creations with free will wouldn't you want to provide them with some mechanism for logicaly being able to choose NOT to believe in you? It sounds to me that ID is something which can be investigated scientificaly. It can (and possibly already has) be falsified.... it posits that certain things are so complex that it is highly improbable they could have developed through the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection.....if you can show that such things can occur through random mutation and natural selection then you've just falsified ID. Note that falsifying ID does not neccesarly falsify the idea that some Inteligent Force MIGHT have had a hand in creation, just the idea that such a force MUST have had a hand in creation. Please don't take any of this to mean that I actualy believe in creationism or ID or think they should be taught in science class. I don't. As I've said elsewhere, I am agnostic. I think science courses should restrict themselves to teaching things which are scientificaly testable and have so far held up to scrutiny. Scientific method is an incredibly valuable tool that has contributed a great deal to humanity. I just wanted to point out that the scientific explanation is not NECCESSARLY always the one which must be the objective truth.....that however, is a matter for a philosophy course. Posted by: cengel at December 1, 2004 11:24 AMThank you, Cengel, for pointing out the aspect of free will. That is, I believe, a fundmental aspect of the feasibility of Creation theory. If God, as Omnipotent Creator, wants us to accept Him of our own free will, why would He not endow His creation as He has so that our acceptance of Him is a step of faith? That, I think, is the fundamental difference between science and religion. ID really doesn't have a place in the teaching of "hard" sciences, such as biology or geology. However, it might have a place in the more theoretical sciences. I'm not sure that I expressed that exactly as I wanted... but then I'm not fully awake yet, either! Posted by: Heather Feuerhelm at December 1, 2004 12:08 PM"ID really doesn't have a place in the teaching of "hard" sciences, such as biology or geology. However, it might have a place in the more theoretical sciences." Heather, With all due respect, I have no idea what you mean by that. What is a "theoretical" science? I'm at a loss as to what branch of science would lend itself to an explanation that God endowed us with faith, so that proves there is a Creator. I assume you mean something like physics in which hypotheses are not directly testable; but physics still assumes that there is an explanation for natural phenomena that lay within the scope of human explanation. If the true explanation is that God created the universe in such a way as to foil human's ability to explain it, that is beyond science and into theology. ID goes against the grain of thousands of years of intellectual history in which seemingly mysterious and unintelligble phenomena have eventually been found to have a physical source, which source was found by the application of human reasoning. Certainly, it is possible (in the sense that we cannot disprove the possibility)that God, for His own reasons, created a world that is incomprehensible to the human mind. But, if you believe that, you must accept it purely on faith. There is simply no way that you can rationally prove or disprove that BTW, by saying that ID or belief in God is not scientific is not saying that teaching science requires debunking the existence of God. There is no reason a teacher should say that such and such proves there is no God. By the same token, there is no reason that a science teacher should teach something that has no relationship to everything we think of as science. People can go to church for that. Posted by: MWS at December 1, 2004 12:31 PMWith all due respect, I have no idea what you mean by that. What is a "theoretical" science? I'm at a loss as to what branch of science would lend itself ... MWS: As a former fundamentalist Christian, allow me to interpret the statement: "ID really doesn't have a place in the teaching of "hard" sciences, such as biology or geology. However, it might have a place in the more theoretical sciences." Interpretation: Hard science is those sciences which don't conflict with somebody's faith. And, even though those sciences abound with theories, they are not accused of being "just a theory." On the other hand, "theoretical sciences" are those sciences which conflict with somebody's faith. Theories within this class of science are accused of being "just a theory." Here's an interesting post I found online @ http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000632.html#more …I think there’s a pretty good reason for not mandating the teaching of intelligent design, and that is—and this is something that’s become apparent to people in Ohio and people in Kansas and people in Pennsylvania who’ve looked at the issue. And that is, there’s nothing to teach. And what I mean by that is—and I was one of the essayists in the Cambridge University volume that he is referring to. And what you see in that is that there simply is—even in the views of its proponents, there is no evidence for design, and that the papers in that booklet talking about design are really a collection of arguments against Darwinism, against evolution, I should say—arguments that I might add are pretty easily refuted. Posted by: Don T. Know at December 2, 2004 02:07 PMWhat I'm saying this that when scientists use the word "theory" to describe evolution, people hear what scientists mean when they say "hypothesis" I'm saying when scientists say "they theory of evolution" people hear "the evolution hypothesis ... I would like to postulate the idea that "people" who hear "hypothesis" in their mind when somebody says "theory" are doing so selectively. Specifically, they do so when it concerns evolution because they cannot accept the possibility that evolution might be in the same league as gravity and thermodynamics. I don't think bible literalists hear "the hypothesis of gravity" when a scientist says "the theory of gravity." And the reason is quite simple. Gravity doesn't challenge their worldview. Evolution does. This observation is in-line with the idea that people don't become IDers because they are persuaded to ID. They are IDers becaues they are anti-evolution. Posted by: Don T. Know at December 2, 2004 02:20 PMDon, Thanks for the link. I will say this, however, I would not put ID advocates in the same category with Holocaust deniers. Posted by: MWS at December 2, 2004 03:19 PMA friend sent me this today. I don't think he reads this blog. Coincidence, or God's design? http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers And Rick, I'll buy your argument regarding natural selection being the theory and not evolution. But to take a page from your book, common usage has generally been 'theory' not 'fact' of evolution. It would be a little like reinventing the wheel to change the way everyone refers to it. But thanks for the discussion. It's a good one. Posted by: tim at December 2, 2004 04:18 PMHere's another decent explanation of scientific terms Here's an excellent article on the subject: Original article: Article @ Talk.Origins: If It's Supernatural It Isn't Science National media attention focused on suburban Cobb County, Ga., last week as a federal court heard constitutional challenges to a school district policy requiring that a biology textbook carry this disclaimer: "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." Plaintiffs complain that the disclaimer, which is similar to others popping up in school districts from Alabama to Wisconsin, violates the separation of church and state. But scientists themselves call evolution a theory. Why can't a school district? Typically, when scientists refer to the "theory" of evolution, they mean what's called Darwinism, the specific concept of evolution by natural selection — survival of the fittest — or its synthesis with modern genetics. By contrast, the big picture of evolution — the concept that one species descended from another — is considered by many scientists to be a fact. Even biochemist Michael J. Behe, whose popular 1996 book, "Darwin's Black Box," helped reawaken public opposition to Darwinism, accepts that explanation for the origin of species. Yet the question remains: Why should scientists object to a school district describing Darwinism as a theory when they do so themselves? In part it is a matter of semantics. Cobb County is a bedroom community for Atlanta, the home of Coca-Cola. Many residents use the word "Coke" generally to refer to all colas and specifically to mean their local brew. They certainly know the difference between the two uses, especially if given a Pepsi when they ask for Coke. Similarly, the word "theory" has a popular meaning, which is roughly equivalent to "hypothesis" or "educated guess" or even "hunch." Scientists typically mean something much more specific when they use the word. In science, a "fact" is an observation repeatedly and consistently confirmed, while a "theory" is a well-substantiated naturalistic explanation for a related set of facts or observations. Science has many such theories. Physicists talk about the theory of relativity; geologists, the theory of plate tectonics; astronomers, the big bang theory. These theories are not mere hypotheses or educated guesses, but rather the very superstructure of modern science. Among all these theories, why should school boards flag only the theory of evolution? Textbooks could warn that every scientific theory "should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." Theories can fall, of course. In astronomy, the big bang theory (which posits an ever-expanding universe) replaced the steady-state theory in the last generation, for instance. A reigning scientific theory is simply the best current naturalistic explanation for some physical phenomenon. For most of evolution's critics, therein lies the rub: The norms of science call upon scientists to account for physical phenomena in terms of natural — repeatable, observable, testable — causes. Even if God specifically created the first humans in his image in a one-time event, that could not be a naturalistic explanation for our existence. It might be true, but it cannot be science. It's supernatural, not natural. Mixing scientific and religious explanations for origins in a classroom is a bit like mixing apples and oranges in a bowl. It can be done, but they're still different fruits. Consider recent trends in medical education to incorporate some discussion of the healing power of prayer into the curriculum. In most cases, this involves alerting medical students to evidence that prayer can give patients psychological strength to battle disease, not teaching them how to invoke God's help to heal patients miraculously — or undermining theories of natural causation in medicine. As far as I know, neither God's judgment nor demon possession is presented as sources of illness in licensed medical schools. We expect our physicians to learn the germ theory of disease, not faith healing. Similarly, the educational effect of teaching evolution as a theory depends on how it's done. If students learn to understand a theory as scientists do, then they may better appreciate the nature, power and limits of evolutionary science as a developing tool for understanding life. But if they are allowed to conclude that the theory of evolution is little more than Darwin's best guess on the origin of species, then science education is gravely undermined. And if the idea is to promote a religious explanation for origins over a scientific one, then the mix of apples and oranges violates the separation of church and state. A federal judge will soon decide this last issue for Cobb County. My theory is that the disclaimer will fall — but that's only my educated guess, not a scientific conclusion. attached is a new site that attacks this subject directly. Feel free to watch the videos at your leisure: |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
