6degrees Astroblog
What Should be Taught in Science Classes
By Irwin Horowitz, 5-03-08
 |
|
 | |
|
For nearly a century a battle has raged in our country over the nature of science and how it should be taught to public school students. When Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species” in 1859 based on his observations of various animal species during his voyage on the H.M.S. Beagle, it immediately crystallized a growing disagreement between the proponents of a divinely inspired origin to life on Earth and those who looked for a natural explanation for the multitude of species.
Early in the 20th century there was an increasing emphasis on teaching this new concept to students. However, by the mid-1920s, a number of states began passing legislation prohibiting the teaching of evolution. The most notable of these was the Butler Act of 1925, passed by the state of Tennessee. This legislation was the basis of the famous Scopes “monkey trial,” which was fictionalized in the play “Inherit the Wind.”
By the 1960s there was near-universal acceptance of Darwin’s ideas. With the repeal of the Butler Act in 1967 the last vestiges of the opposition to teaching evolution had faded away. However, a new form of anti-Darwinist backlash was taking hold in the guise of “creation science.” Rather than continue to fight a losing battle to keep students from learning about the scientifically approved version for the origin development of life on Earth, fundamentalist Christians chose to follow a different tactic.
They spent enormous amounts of time and effort trying to disprove evolution via natural selection. They would argue that their ideas deserved equal time in the public debate. They encouraged like-minded supporters to run for school boards and to then implement their agenda by requiring alternative explanations be taught in science classroom.
Unfortunately for the proponents of biblical creationism the one thing that they haven’t tried to do is conform to the established guidelines on what actually constitutes science. There is a good reason for that. It is because the arguments in support of their ideas never actually enter the realm of science.
What is science?
According to the practitioners of science, there are certain irrefutable characteristics for any concept to fall within the realm of science. Among these are the following:
1. It is guided by natural law;
2. It explains the empirical evidence already collected;
3. It makes testable predictions;
4. Its conclusions are tentative and it acknowledges its own limitations; and
5. It is falsifiable.
By any account, the story of creationism fails each and every one of these requirements. The essential basis of creationism depends upon belief in a supernatural source, beyond the scope of natural law. It flatly rejects the wealth of scientific data collected across a broad range of disciplines since the dawn of the scientific reformation. It fails to make any testable predictions and insists that the answers must conform to a predisposed conclusion. It denies its own limitations and any attempt to expunge it from reality. Lastly, it is simply not falsifiable.
What is creationism?
I have spent hours trying to answer this question. As an atheist, I truly have no conception of what constitutes creationism. I have been steeped in the disciplines of science throughout my adult life and have difficulty reconciling the statements made by proponents of this particular concept with my understanding of how the universe actually functions.
Recognizing and admitting my limitations regarding creationism, I will attempt to describe this story as best I can. The central theme of creationism appears to be biblical inerrancy. That is, the words found in the Bible were literally handed down directly from a supreme being, generally referred to as God. As such, they are not to be questioned or modified or rejected by the faithful. If, according to Genesis, God created the heavens and the Earth in six days and rested on the seventh, then believers take that in a literal sense. As an atheist, a question I have is if God is omnipotent, why did he need to rest?
Young-Earth creationists, who represent a sizable fraction of all believers in this biblical story, make the additional assumption that our planet (and indeed the entire universe) came into existence about 6000 years ago. This date is based on the works of Archbishop James Ussher (Church of Ireland) in the mid-17th century, who examined the Bible and other sources to determine the “date of creation.” His analysis resulted in a date of 23 Oct 4004 B.C.
As an astronomer, the adherence to this analysis by young-Earth creationists leaves me baffled. I routinely use my own telescope to observe galaxies that are millions of light years away. For instance, when viewing the Andromeda Galaxy, the light my eyes detect left nearly three million years ago, back when our distant ancestors were first learning to walk upright on the plains of Africa.
I look at the images and spectra of objects that are even more distant which are acquired with professional telescopes. I thrill to the latest discoveries of my fellow stargazers who push back the limits of our ignorance to address questions related to how the universe has come into existence.
I had the privilege back in 1989 to attend the launch of the Cosmic Background Explorer at Vandenberg AFB in California. This satellite has revolutionized our understanding of the conditions present in the early universe a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang. The Hubble Space Telescope, the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, the Chandra X-ray Observatory and the Spitzer Space Telescope have each made fundamental scientific contributions to this picture of how our universe originated and evolved over the past 13.7 billion years.
Radiological dating techniques of meteorites and of ancient rocks show that our solar system first formed about 4.6 billion years ago and that the Earth began to cool around 3.9 billion years ago. The earliest confirmed fossil evidence for life dates to a few hundred million years after this time period. Thus, the continued adherence to a belief in a young Earth flies in the face of all of the scientific evidence.
All of this constitutes empirical data that have been painstakingly acquired over the past several centuries by dedicated professional scientists. None of it supports the pronouncements made by the proponents of creationism. When they attempt to make arguments based on science, their naiveté and lack of depth is painfully evident.
Lastly, I would like to address the subject of falsifiability in greater depth. One of the hallmarks of any scientific theory is that there must be some manner by which it could be shown to be incorrect. Without this feature, then all of the results of science would be suspect. We couldn’t really reject the notion that the Earth was flat. We couldn’t really reject the notion that leeching blood would cure disease. We couldn’t really reject the notion that your bundle of joy arrived via the stork.
Whenever I encounter a proponent of creationism, I ask them to suggest an experiment that I can conduct or an observation that I could make in which the results could conclusively demonstrate to them that their idea is wrong. It is a challenge that has yet to have any response.
Perhaps one such observation may be the discovery of intelligent extra-terrestrial life. If SETI were to acquire an unambiguous signal from the depths of space, would that be sufficient proof of biblical errancy? After all, there is no mention of life beyond the Earth in the Bible. It would be a rather large gap to have left out.
Without such an empirical test that could conclusively disprove the concept, it is not acceptable to teach creationism as science. It has no business being discussed in any public school science class and to insist on having it taught based on a notion of “equal time” rejects the very important notion that students should be learning science in those classrooms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Returning to the evening skies this month is the innermost member of our solar system. Mercury is visible after sunset near the Pleiades star cluster. By mid-month it remains above the horizon for two hours after sunset. It will rapidly close on the Sun after that, reaching inferior conjunction by early June.
This world, the most mysterious of the five naked eye planets, is the cover story (subscription required) in the May issue of Astronomy magazine. They report on the first spacecraft mission to Mercury in over 30 years. A flyby of the planet by the MESSENGER spacecraft in January provided a wealth of new data and images of regions that had never been previously observed. The probe will enter orbit around Mercury in three years and will give an unprecedented view of this world.
Mars is gradually moving further away from us, making it fainter and smaller when viewed through a telescope. It is leaving Gemini and entering Cancer this month and will appear to cross the prominent cluster M44 (Beehive Cluster) from 21-23 May. For those with telescopes, this is an excellent opportunity to observe the motion of one of our planetary neighbors against the backdrop of stars and to contrast the salmon color of the “Red” planet with the white color of most of the cluster members.
Saturn continues to dominate the early evening skies in springtime. It remains visible just east of the bright star Regulus in the constellation of Leo. Through a telescope eyepiece, the rings are easily discernible, though their opening angle is decreasing as we approach ring plane crossing in 2009.
Jupiter is rising earlier every day. At the start of the month it is visible shortly before 2 a.m. on the southeastern horizon and stands high up in that direction by dawn. By month’s end, it will rise just after midnight and will dominate the pre-dawn skies for the next few months.
The Boise Astronomical Society will be holding their monthly membership meeting at the Whittenberger Planetarium on the campus of the College of Idaho in Caldwell on Friday, 09 May at 7 p.m. The following day is National Astronomy Day and we will be providing the public with opportunities to view the Sun at the Discovery Center of Idaho in downtown Boise starting around 10 a.m.
The observatory at Bruneau Dunes State Park is open for public viewing every Friday and Saturday evening. There is a 25” telescope available, which is the largest such instrument in the state of Idaho. These evenings also include a presentation on some astronomical topic in the classroom located next to the observatory. There is a nominal fee for the presentation and viewing along with a vehicle entrance fee at the park (entrance fee waived for overnight campers). The observing season will continue through early November.
Once again, I invite members of astronomy clubs located throughout the New West region of coverage (CO, ID, MT, OR, UT, WA, WY) to me their upcoming events so that I can publicize them here on my blog.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Like to receive our print magazine, The New West? Click here for free subscription information.
Comments
But the bigger problem is that, due to NCLB and teaching to the test and so on, there's hardly any *time* for science, particularly the lab science that helps students discover critical thinking skills. My daughter is in second grade and sometimes they don't even *have* science of any kind. I was talking with some people about how many of the experiments we grew up doing in science lab are no longer done.
Similarly, I heard a girl the other day taking about how she wanted to be a vet, but she bemoaned the fact that she'd have to talk math "all the way to trigonometry." That was only 11th grade math when I went to school.
If our kids aren't being taught math and science at all, it doesn't matter whether it's evolution or intelligent design.
The think I love about science is that once you learn the basics you can look for things that fit the rules and things that fall ourside what you are expecting. Then you can try to figure out what really is happening. That makes the world interesting and promotes learning at all levels.
Not having the Spirit, Mr. Horowitz would think Creationism is foolish and grasp for some explanation of life. 1 Cor 2:14 says, "But the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appriased." God is a step ahead of Mr. Horowitz.
One thing that bugs a multitude of people is that evolution and a bazillion-year-old universe (give or take a few hundred million years) is continually put in our faces by uninformed and unthinking people.
Take time to look at and think about things. The miracle of the human body. The miracles of nature. Just the other day I was looking at the Rocky Mountain Front from a distance and realized how thin and miraculous is the atmosphere. It protects us from radiaition and extremes of heat and cold. It provides oxygen. It carries clouds that provide life-giving mositure. All this by chance? I don't think so.
We will continue to hear foolishness from the great unregenerate thinkers of the world, and that's okay. Those of us who have, only by God's accord, had the scales removed from our eyes, yearn for truth and justice, even in this world.
I believe we should seek a way for both reason and faith to co-exist in the educational system. They don't always have to be mutually exclusive, except for those who hold a "fundamentalist" position on either extreme. I do ascribe to a form of creationism, but not in the strict "fundamentalist" sense of the word. Cosmology does show us that the world is much older than 6,000 years. God's "days" are not limited to literal 24-hour time periods or any other finite measurements of time. I have never limited the Infinite to my own finite understandings.
Let's relax and acknowledge the meaning of our existence will be better understood through continued explorations by both avenues of reason and faith. In my view, this is not a form of niavity, but wisdom.
In Florida , an atheist became incensed over the preparation of Easter and Passover holidays. He decided to contact his lawyer about the discrimination inflicted on atheists by the constant celebrations afforded to Christians and Jews with all their holidays while atheists had no holiday to celebrate.
The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the long passionate presentation by the lawyer, the Judge banged his gavel and declared, 'Case dismissed!'
The lawyer immediately stood and objected to the ruling and said, 'Your honor, how can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter and many other o bserva nces. Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah...yet my client and all other atheists have no such holiday!'
The judge leaned forward in his chair and simply said, 'Obviously your client is too confused to even know about, much less celebrate his own atheists' holiday!'
The lawyer pompously said, 'Your Honor, we are unaware of any such holiday for atheists. Just when might that holiday be, your Honor?'
The judge said, 'Well it comes every year on exactly the same date---April 1st! Since our calendar sets April 1st as 'April Fools Day,' consider that Psalm 14:1 states, 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.' Thus, in my opinion, if your client says there is no God, then by scripture, he is a fool, and April 1st is his holiday! Now have a good day and get out of my courtroom!!
Way to go, Judge! AMEN
You people are a piece of work. What is it you offer to the community beyond self-righteousness, useless dismissals and bad jokes?
Try reading ALL the words in Horowitz' fine article, instead of just the ones that light up your religious hackles. (And a little Matthew 6:6 wouldn't hurt you either, as Sharon suggests.)
Giving creationism equal time with evolution would be like giving astrology equal time with astronomy or giving voodoo equal time with medicine.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/atheistholiday.htm
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have
heard it. Do not believe in traditions because they
have been handed down for many generations. Do not
believe in anything because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers or elders. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason, and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live to it."
The Buddha, in the Kalama Sutra
There are, of course, eminent people in science who cannot explain to their satisfaction who pushed the plunger to start the Big Bang. That is the sort of Descartes deal of doubting it all up to and including your own existence, but by doubting, proving your existence. There are those in science who still think that no matter how far back you can go to find the origin by scientific method, there are still questions without answers. And if they dare utter one word about faith or intelligent design, they lose tenure, jobs, grants, standing in science. Not at all tolerant of believers, that Big Science. And Horowitz is a good Centurian for the cause, a herald as it were.
Stein's movie takes you far beyond the messy little disagreements over creationism and Darwinism, to examine the historical and political outcomes of rigid adherence to Darwinism, not at all a pleasant memory.
So, since Horowitz has opened the door, I would urge people to see the Ben Stein movie "Expelled", just to see one man's view, one man's interviews with people on both sides of the question, or really, statements made by Horowitz, as he is parroting the party line. Stein's movie is a nice counter point to this article.
Buddhism is kind of the anti-dogma religion. Instead of laying down all sorts of pronouncements about Thou Shall and Thou Shalt Not, it basically says, hey, here's some stuff, and it's worked for a lot of people for several thousands years, so give it a shot. If it works for you, too, great!
Just out of curiosity, what would you consider to be the basic tenets of science? Should concepts that fall outside of those tenets be taught in science classes? I note in your ad hominem attack on me that you fail to respond to my challenge on the falsifiability of creationism. Do you believe that this particular story is falsifiable? Do you think this feature is a basic aspect of science? If not, why not?
The other says that, in the mainstream, science has a lot of answers for a lot of things, but it fails us at the beginning, at the Big Bang, or whatever is the starting point, and since mystics, seers, soothe sayers, nor science have a control, any replication by experiment, any forensic evidence to this point, we can have the comfort of knowing in our minds that something with higher powers than man is/was at the controls. Not really earth shaking thinking, that. Or you can believe that the scientific answer is just around the corner. Your call.
If you go too far off the path in any adventure, you might fall of the edge of some precipice and perish. So many people want to have a path with a journey's end, and who would I be to deprive them of that? And others want to have all their questions answered by science, and accept no others. And who would I be to disparage those folks? To get along in the world, there are times and thoughts that have to be tolerated to the end that we all have the right to pursue our happiness, enjoy our freedoms, live our lives as we see fit.
You might have a point to disagree with all I have to say, and that is your right. My right is to be able to say it, to believe as I might. And I want all to have both those rights. In that vein, I accommodate other views, visions, and idiosyncratic behavior as long as it does not keep me from my doltish ways, from my pursuit of windmills and the like. Live and let live.
So, I take it all in, and some with a grain of salt to make it palatable. But if anyone thinks I will buy into strict Darwinism, with the accoutrements of stuff like eugenics, mercy killing, the State pulling the plug on people in dire straits, forced sterilization of genetic train wrecks, all with the unique mathematical precision of science for support, you will have a fight on your hands. Don't even go there. For science does not have a conscience, a soul, and as such, lacks the essential humanity that distinguishes humans in all our forms and states from pure evil to heavenly good. I ain't gonna give that up for you or anyone else even though I cannot prove my position by replication of results through experiment, by mathematical equation, by theory based on proven facts. It is my beliefs and my humanity that are at stake. And yours.
If the Pharisees had got around to talking to Jesus about creationism vs. scientific explanation, I imagine he would have said something about rendering on to reason that which can be reasoned, and let God be content with the mysteries that remain.
Regarding Ben Stein's release "Expelled:" I find it reprehensible to attribute to evolutionary biology the notion that the Nazi's were just some form of Darwinian automaton, responding to the dictates of natural selection when they murdered over 11 million innocents including 6 million Jews. Social Darwinism is completely unrelated to Darwin's theories of natural selection. There was nothing natural in what the Nazi's did in their concentration camps and repeated attempts by the proponents of biblical literalism will not stick when this is pointed out.
Elegance in simplicity.
Irwin asks, what should be taught? Sharon hits the nail on the head. Use the KISS principle. Learn the basics: math, English composition, biology, chemistry, and physical science. The US educational system is failing at the most basic level.
bearbait argues to respect the volatile incompatibility of scientific theory and religion and keep them separate. Give each their space. I agree with him too. When it comes to a debate between theology and theoretical science let the combatants use nothing sharper than words. To argue for a stronger science curriculum doesn't require a contentious refutation of theology to make the point. Just my opinion.
I went to parent-teacher deals over the years, school carnivals, whatever it was a parent was supposed to do. With grandchildren, I have been to school with them. System overload is what I see. So many visual stimulants in the classroom I have to wonder how you keep a kid's attention. But that is method, not subject.
There is no end to the science that a kid should be taught. I have a Mormon friend whose boys are a high tech engineer, a nuclear engineer, a mechanical engineer, and one soon to be a physician's asst. In no way do science and religion conflict their lives. They are complimentary.
Religion is not to be taught in public schools, which is a no brainer. So I have no qualms with science being taught to any degree, but I would draw the line if science stuck its nose into religion. It is not difficult for a teacher to avoid that conflict at any level of education, including graduate school. The conflicts always arise with smarty pants science types with limited social skills showing us how complex their body of knowledge is, and how only simpletons have faith. And the donnybrook follows. Or a true believer of some super conservative religious denomination decides that religion trumps science, and the donnybrook follows. Common sense has to prevail. Civility has to prevail. This can never be Mosul, Karbala.
I have not had any organic chemistry since high school. All I remember is how huge and complex carbon molecules can be, and how statistically remote it would be for random events to invent proteins out of multiple molecules of differing design, enough of them to kick start reproduction of those proteins in a colony and call it "life." My math skills are also limited, but since there are monster computer banks out there that have yet to produce a viable answer, I will not attempt one. I will not worry about even having an answer. I want kids to have access to all the science they can handle in public school, science not tainted by intelligent design theory or religion. At private schools, schools of religious basis, science can contain whatever beliefs are germane to their followers. Grads of those schools are welcome to teach in any public schools with credentials, but not to interject religion into the fray of learning.
I remember 7th period calculus class, a hot afternoon, no air conditioning, Mr. Kipper writing barely decipherable solutions on the chalk board up front, and the door opens, a kid sticks his head in and says "Sorry to bother, but we need so-in-so at the stage for the assembly at 3:00." Kipper turns around and sardonically says "God helps those who help themselves." At which time the only Jewish kid in class turns around to the boy at the door and says "Ask God to be your stagehand." Snickers everywhere. That was the only time I remember religion in public school. And my high school had a Mormon elder for a principal, and he was hiring people of his faith for every vacancy. He once called me out of class to meet him at my locker. Blood was dripping out of it, and had pooled a little on the floor of the back hall. I had pheasant hunted on the way to school, and my Model 12 (broke down in my newspaper carrier's bag), vest, shells, and a pair of roosters and a wood duck were hanging in my locker. Not one word said about any of it but "Clean up the blood and next time put the birds in a plastic bag." A different time in the New West. Like many who respond here, I often wonder if things do get better or just more complex, with less joy, less comfort, and way too many new worries.
Currently we inhabitat a paradise called earth that humans seem "hell bent" on destroying and, far too many, use belief in a Creator as a justification for destroying the "Creation". Science which first starts with knowledge, then into invention and then into civilization has created as many problems as it has solved. So obviously both science and religion, to date, are not "the answer". And I don't know what is.
But I do know this, irrational beliefs, backed by nothing more than mirages, may plunge us back into the "dark ages". Where does one draw a line on such out- rageous beliefs such as: 911 was a Bush conspiracy, that Black United nation helicopters are invading this country, the earth is 6000 years old or that the debate about wheather the earth is flat or a sphere should continue because of a perverted sense of "fair play".
What would ID have to say? Wow, this is so complex, forget about understanding this, this had to be an intelligent designer at work. And that's fine but it's not science and you can't do anything with it. Reconciling your faith should never be an easy exercise and we don't need to give people another excuse not to think. We have American Idol or Expelled for that!
Author Flores Girl: The Children God Forgot and the MillenniumWriting.com Blog
My only contention with what you wrote concerns the statement:
"Science which first starts with knowledge." In reality, science begins with ignorance. It is from that state of not knowing that one can move towards a state of understanding or knowledge. We employ the scientific method as the means to accomplish this transition because it has been shown to be a valid method of doing this.
Bearbait,
Thank you for your response. It seems now that you are generally in agreement with the basic thesis I've initially posited in this column...that public school science classes should focus on teaching science and that the story of biblical creation falls outside of that realm.
One can certainly make a case regarding the manner in which evolutionary biology and/or Big Bang cosmology are taught, in which the empirical evidence supporting these two subjects is laid down like brickwork to establish the foundation of support for both models, but it is important to note when the hard data is lacking and conjecture begins to enter the discussion. However, this is by no means to be construed as an avenue for introducing concepts that lack a scientific basis into a scientific discussion.
Erik,
I am not sure whom you are referring to with your initial question and subsequent comment. I am the one asking what should be taught in schools and I come down strongly on the side of teaching science in science classes and not anything from the bible. As your comment seems to imply, this is a position you agree with.
Lastly, Craig, while I realize you are responding to some detail in bearbait's comments, the link you provide has no relevance to the discussion being presented here regarding the teaching of science in science classes and seems to simply be an example of a non sequitor.
Complexity is in the eye of the beholder, or is that the duh-holder?
Intelligent Design has zero scientific facts. There are no publications, no peer reviewed journals, and no scientific debates where Intelligent Design doesn't have to step back and say "here is the giant magic fella, he did it". There is no controversy. Those "scientists" that continue to push for ID had better pony up and actually deliver on the goods or they will be let go, fired, pink-slipped and/or given the boot, with justification.
As well, you might stop believing the Discovery Institute if you knew exactly how many lies that they have been caught in. They are the major backers of the Expelled film, as well as a new group called Biological Institute.
On top of it all, attempting to conflate the ideals of organic evolution with any sort of social eugenics practices is creating a bogeyman that isn't real. Martin Luther preached eugenics long before Darwin's theories came out. Darwinism is an examined science, eugenics is a practice of nothing more than tribalism, a low order brain function that we as intelligent beings are usually way above due to the nature of community and survival being closely linked.
Challenges to evolution need to start from the basis of science. So far no challenge has met the requirements to be considered serious.
Mr. Horowitz' guest column here is a column, which differs from a report. It is one person's point of view. Anyone who would like to write a guest column disagreeing is always invited to send one to me at . If it's written well enough - not its content, but the basics of acceptable writing - we will almost always run it. The rules are no profanity, no personal insults such as "you people, you're like...." or "Mr. Writer obviously comes from the school of stupid" (Actual quote from past submissions) or any insult naming an individual.
Now if science is to be composed of only linear thinkers, then that is their lot. However, society has to also embrace abstract thinkers, to break molds, wander through the thought process at will, for us to enter new paths and fields of possible answers to unknown questions. If what I have read about physics is true, great leaps forward have been made by people who could not offer up a complete truth using scientific method. Only long after the idea has been out there, and long after it has been accepted have some sort of proofing methods worked. The person knew the answer, but not exactly what the question was. They knew the destination, but little of the journey. I don't want that type of thinker to be destroyed by littler minds who have a firm grasp on only what has been proven without doubt, by some other person whose mind they will never be able to enter. And, I don't want to punish those who have attempted to find the answer to creation and failed, to be stoned by academics for their common failure.
Intelligent design is only a thought, a faith, an answer to a question science has yet to answer. And we know that vast sums are spent annually to find the answer to what all this is, and why is it here, and who the hell are we. Not everyone is blessed with super intelligence. Most of Earth's peoples are damned lucky to have a roof and a pot of food, let alone time to ponder creation. A huge chunk of the world has had answers driven into their heads in early childhood religious regimes of blind obedience. None of what we discuss will ever be a part of their world. Actually, infidels like me can be dispatched without guilt, without blinking an eye. That bothers me. I would think it bothers anyone in academic science or in research. But that is the real world. So my hope is that this is not a society of exclusivity, one that does not tolerate anything but scientific reason. To think otherwise makes my skin crawl. All the self preservation skills I possess go on early warming mode. I am very wary of True Believers of any stripe, from academics to religious to sports fans to racial purists.
All evidence that has been offered up for Intelligent Design comes down to personal incredulity. That isn't enough to form a theory. There is no evidence, and given the writings of the demi-gods of ID, Behe and Dembski, there never will be.
But I also see you ignored my challenge, something I would expect of Craig. Name one person that has been fired for studying Intelligent Design. But beware, you probably don't know the whole story behind any single person you can name, and I'll come down on the misinformation hard.
Come on, who can be the first one to make that claim?
Or maybe the banana argument. Thats my personal favorite. Kirk Cameron, what a joker.
As well, you then imply that those for whom materialism is a way of life are nihilistic and lost. How utterly uninformed of you.
Your personal assualt is so typical. This column has nothing to do with me. Please stay on topic.
The only side claiming any sort of persecution would be that of Intelligent Design. Evolutionists/Materialists don't bother, they just continue to laugh and point at the worthless propaganda that the IDists continue to push.
And this is the topic Craig, please stop whining and whinging.
Sound familiar? Your statement, taken at face value, goes way beyond that article. If you're unable to write clearer, I suggest you might step back for a moment and get yourself edumicated like your favorite president.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1211593-1,00.html
Collins is an evangelical twit that has attempted to ride Dembski's coat tails to a life of luxury funding by the Disco Institute. He's a whore for Jesus and his arguments are nothing more than religion hidden behind a thin facade of science.
Collins' poor argument that God created Man and the beasts are evolved is a joke amongst most evolutionists. His leaps of logic are only heralded by those that try to paint ID and creationism as a harmless foray, a simple challenge to evolution, when it is no such thing. Creationism and ID are theological attempts to invade an academia that has rejected their fictions and hidden agendas. There is absolutely no reason that scientists should have to take time away from valuable research to answer ridiculous theological arguments that stem from a book that contradicts itself more than it agrees with itself. Give it up.
You insult Collins as a "whore for Jesus." When you have accomplished as much with your life in the advancement of science as Collins has, please let us know.
I did point it out, you're just too dense to recognize it for what it is. Your statement is straight out of a "teach the controversy" pamphlet handed out by the Disco Institute.
And my second post about Collins already addressed your points. He still doesn't get a pass for his early works and his "human elitism" is a pathetic attempt to justify an evangelical religion.
As long as religious extremists continue to attempt for force their doctrines on our secular system this debate will only get more extreme.
I should caution you before trying to step in the middle of the pissing contest between Jay and Craig. This isn't the first blog post at New West where these two have gone after each other and it won't be the last, I'm sure.
That being said, perhaps I can strike a note about trying to return the discussion here back to the topic at hand, which is the nature of the curriculum to be covered in public school science classes.
I want to emphasize the limited nature of what I'm addressing. I specifically rule out private educational institutions which are free to teach what they desire within the confines of a particular state's educational requirements.
I also specifically refer this to science classes rather than more general scholastic areas. I would not have a problem with the story of biblical creation being taught in a class about comparative religion and philosophy (as long as it was presented in a neutral manner along with a range of other concepts).
I would not have a problem with a class teaching the bible as literature. It is, after all, one of the greatest works of fiction ever written :-) and has had a profound effect on western civilization. I would not have a problem with a class dealing with the role of religion and faith in society in both an historical as well as contemporary context. I just have a problem with teaching this story in science class.
Mostly, I feel that the most appropriate venue for teaching biblical creation is in the church. As I have mentioned to Dave elsewhere, this is where it should be taught. As a minister, I am sure he would prefer to be able to present the story in a context with which he is most comfortable.
Perhaps I can suggest another avenue for discussion regarding this topic. Biblical literalists desire to have the government provide them with "equal time" to present their particular belief system in the public schools. Would it be fair then, on the basis of this "equal time" argument, for the government to provide naturalists (evolutionary biologists, observational cosmologists, etc.) with access to church pulpits to promote the scientific rationale for the origin of the universe and the evolution of life here on Earth?
I doubt we naturalists would be too interested in this access, and as staunch defenders of the 1st amendment we believe in a strict separation of church and state, but consider this viewpoint to understand why we vigorously defend the teaching of science in these classes.
While I think it's ludicrous to believe that the creation story (not to mention, which one? there's two) in the Bible is literally true -- the earth is not 6000 years old and so on -- I do not discount the possibility that some extraordinary Force started the wheels all turning at some point billions or trillions of years ago to create the universe, the galaxy, or whatever. However, I don't believe it should be taught in science class. We don't know, we can't know, so it doesn't belong there. Philosophy class, religion class -- go for it.
Scientific principles aside, too many people believe in too many different types of "how the world was created" to expect a single teacher to be able to address it, unless that is the *purpose* of the entire class -- in which case it's philosophy, comparative religion, or whatever.
"Irwin asks, what should be taught? Sharon hits the nail on the head. Use the KISS principle. Learn the basics: math, English composition, biology, chemistry, and physical science. The US educational system is failing at the most basic level.
bearbait argues to respect the volatile incompatibility of scientific theory and religion and keep them separate. Give each their space. I agree with him too. When it comes to a debate between theology and theoretical science let the combatants use nothing sharper than words. To argue for a stronger science curriculum doesn't require a contentious refutation of theology to make the point. Just my opinion."
It seems odd that science seems to be limited to evolution and a denigration of theology in these types of discussions. Keep theology out of the science classroom. Denigration of theology doesn't belong in the science classroom either. There is so much more, like the human genome which doesn't require a reliance upon theology or a refutation of it to unlock its secrets.
There are non-negotiable distinctions to be made. Whatever God is, is not, did do, or didn't do, She is free to audit any classes She likes, but She is not allowed to speak up. We, Her creation, if it pleases you to imagine the universe that way, have been empowered, and charged with working things out on our own.
Maybe it was that fateful apple that did it, and if we'd just stayed away from the Knowledge of Good and Evil, we could live in the world so many people seem to long for. How nice that we have such vivid imaginations that we can conjure such things into meta-being, at least, and discuss them to our hearts' content in philosophy and theology classes, and in a Baskin-Robbins variety of religions.
If the forces of non-science (and non-sense) wish to tilt at these windmills in their religious enclaves, more power to them. If they wish to promote magical thinking as a legitimate subset of rational thinking, less power to them. Tolerance has boundaries, and these are amply clear.
The interpretation of persistence of dispute in the face of clear instruction is an open question, but after a reasonable dialogue, we are justified in questioning the good faith (not to be confused with the Good Faith) of disputants.
I should also note that while Craig's enthusiastic praise for the bon mots I put in Jesus' mouth are flattering, I have made no mystery of the fact that I'm an atheist. (Note to David: this says nothing about my "belief system," but simply relates that I find no reason to believe in a personal--or impersonal for that matter--Deity.)
There is ample cause for wonder and awe at our universe, considered by the micron, acre, or parsec. There is more here than we will ever know. What a glorious opportunity! As Robert Bly said, translating Kabir, Fantastic! Don't let a chance like this go by.
Get your head out of that book and look up at the stars for God's sake.
In fairness to both viewpoints, each should seek to at least acknowledge the avenue of the other, without necessarily endorsing it. In a science class, the belief system of creationism should be acknowledged as an alternative viewpoint without discrediting it. The reverse should also be true. Those who teach creationism regardless of the setting, should also acknowedge the value of scientific method. They each provide us greater understanding to the meaning of our existence. Students should be encouraged to weigh the evidences from both avenues and come to their own conclusions. I do, in fact, have a deep appreciation for both science and faith.
You said that as long as the religious extremists continue forcing their doctrines on our secular system this debate will only get more extreme. You are half right on that one. Some atheistic extremists are also seeking to force their own doctrines as well. That is why I continue to appeal for a little more middle ground here. I honestly believe we can continue learning from one another - if we are not hell bent on converting the other to our own belief system.
No evolutionary science answers the question of where did the first life begin? And if it is all evolution why didn't it all involve into the same thing, or perhaps did life spring up in different areas at different tiems and under different circumstances?
By the way there were other beings for Cain and Abel to marry, remember? The apple tree as well as other trees were already in existance. There is no indication that the world was created all at one time, in fact it says it was created over time, and God's time is not the same as our time. Adam and Eve were last.
Elegant simplicity.
Dave, there are no other viewpoints that are supported by science, so why would "creation" be discussed in a science class? Evolution only teaches about the diversity and adaptability of species and the common ancestry of all known life on Earth.
Evolution is supported by an incredible amount of data, but when you start filling children's heads with fictional accounts of creationism you end up with nutcases that believe that the Grand Canyon was formed by the "Great Flood". Naturalism/Materialism is a method by which nature can be studied and understood, as well as benefited by that learning.
All, and I mean ALL, of the data that is used to support ID is based on incredulity of the complexity of micro structures. Instead of being amazed and learning how those microstructures evolved from simpler structures, ID encourages scientists to just stop and step away from the microscope. If we do that, then we are losing a great amount of future knowledge and capability. Cures will be lost, understanding will be lost, and possibly the entire future will be lost.
Teaching any sort of "controversy" in science when there really isn't one is detrimental to the future generations. Some even go so far as to compare it to child abuse (Dawkins in particular).
Evolution/Biology/Naturalism all pass judgment on theology by their very nature, there is no way to take out that judgment without crippling the basic foundation of the science. If your little snowflakes go home and challenge their belief systems, so much the better. If you don't like those challenges? Beat it out of them, make them fear your God because otherwise faith is going to slowly die around us.
That is an exciting future, one that I hope my children are able to really advance and benefit from.
Marion - check to see if "inference" is in your lexicon.
David - I'm sorry, science class is not the place to generously "acknowledge" beliefs which have nothing to do with science.
Science is precisely about discrediting unsubstantiated beliefs. If you propose some form of creationism (such as "Intelligent Design") as science, it must come to class ready to be discredited. See Irwin's requirement #5. The good news is that evolution has to stand for the same treatment.
"God created the heavens and the earth" is a charming (if self-centered) notion of how the universe came to be. It is not a scientific claim. Its only place in science class is to serve as an example of non-science.
"Here there be dragons." And they chase their tails.
Irwin, I would take one issue with you on the comment made about the Bible being only a great work of fiction. Certainly the literalness of some of the characters/events is debateable, but it is not a work of fiction in the pure sense of the word. It is more than that.
Craig, I appreciate your comments regarding the "appropriate respectful separation of science and theology without passing judgment on either." Elegant simplicity indeed.
I am a Christian. I am telling fellow Christians to stop using the "we don't know what God really meant" argument as it is completely irresponsible.
Second, no human being knows how old the earth is, when it was formed, how human beings were created, when and for what purpose.
SCIENCE DOES NOT PROVE ANY OF THIS!!! Science merely tries to provide evidence to support theories, but no-one can be sure.
Why? Because, no-one was there when it happened!!!
Please, stop telling me that ALL scientists say this and say that. Science has been proving science wrong for hundreds of years.
Atheists, agnostics and evolutionists try to discredit the Bible all the time by quoting this verse and that verse. In doing so, they can try to show contradictions and rightly so.
But, the same can be done with science.
How many times have scientists changed their theories on hundreds of issues?
How many times has one science experiment proved another science experiment wrong?
I have heard a variety of ever-changing theories explaining what killed the dinosaurs over the last fifty years. So, let me ask you this:
How many times can science get an answer wrong before it loses its credibility?
Religion is faith-based, but so is science/evolution.
The big bang, rain on rocks, complex chemicals, single cell organisms, etc. to present day is a pretty huge leap of faith.
- Scientists cannot tell us where the particles came from that were needed to create the big bang. They cannot replicate it either.
- Scientists cannot tell us how rain falling on rocks can make complex chemicals. They cannot replicate it either.
- Scientists cannot tell us how these complex chemicals formed life. They cannot replicate it either.
We are all entitled to our opinions and I think we can all agree to disagree.
However, we are all taxpayers (Christians, muslims, atheists, etc)! We all pay for and fund public schools.
Therefore, why should the Christian teaching of creation be excluded from public schools? Why can't it be taught as one of the possibilities along with evolution and any other options out there.
If we are trying to educate our children, wouldn't it be better to provide them with all the options instead of shutting every hallway door except the one that leads to "the evolution room?"
This injustice absolutely wreaks of an "agenda" and I will do everything that I can to change it.
If the public school system continues on this course, then an educational voucher program should be instituted that allows parents to pick what school their child attends.
Right now, if a Christian family wants to send their child to a Christian school, they get no money to help cover tuition costs. But, If they send their child to a public school, the public school will get a voucher from the government for that child. How is that fair? The vouchers are tax dollars. All public monies were once private, so the argument that somehow sending public tax dollars to private schools is wrong holds absolutely no water.
If we want our educational system to improve, then we need to create competition for all schools. We have competition in every other aspect of life (grocery stores, shopping malls, etc.), why not in our schools? If schools had to attract the parents of children and make positive efforts to get them to attend their school in order to get their "voucher," you can bet positive changes would be made in quick order. Want an example? Look at our university system. Our country is falling behind in K-12, but our colleges and universities attract people from all over the world.
Under this approach, curriculum would improve and expand to attract a broader market of families, quality of teachers would improve, cleanliness would improve, maintenance would improve, extracurricular activities would improve, sports programs would improve and efficiency overall would improve. All this would happen simply by making schools market themselves to parents and children.
Anyone who understands economics, free market systems and free enterprise can see it plainly.
Be polite and have a great night!
You've gotten so much wrong, I don't know where to start, but your basic misunderstanding of science is the main thing.
As well, you don't understand the Establishment Clause or all of the court cases that have upheld the Establishment Clause.
You're a theocrat, you believe that Christianity is absolutely true and you want everyone to live under it.
You can fight for whatever you want, but you'd better get used to losing. Oh wait, it looks like you're already there.
"First, the latin word YOM means a 24 hour period. This is the word that was used in (written in latin) Genesis when God spoke about the "days" of creation."
The first five books of the Old Testament are known as the "Mosaic" books because Moses wrote them. Moses wrote them a long, long time ago. Moses was not a Roman. Rome did not yet exist. Moses did not write them in Latin. Consequently, what word was used in a particular Latin translation is irrelevant.
"However, we are all taxpayers (Christians, muslims, atheists, etc)! We all pay for and fund public schools. Therefore, why should the Christian teaching of creation be excluded from public schools?"
You're answering your own question there. All taxpayers, including non-Christians, pay for and fund public schools. So why should a Christian version of the creation story be taught in public schools, unless you're suggesting that *every* possible version of the creation story be taught as well?
I've pointed out in a previous comment some areas where the story of biblical creation may be taught in a reasonable setting (and in a manner that lacks a religious bias or agenda). I've also been consistent in pointing out that science classes are not that setting, since the story is not scientific.
Fortunately, our judicial system understands this basic dichotomy and continues to support the teaching of science in these classes. Unfortunately, there are too many people like TW who refuse to accept or understand this and insist on having their way or they'll throw a temper tantrum.
I'll reiterate a point I made in a previous comment for TW: would you be OK with the government telling your minister that he must permit scientists to teach the scientific theory of the origin of the universe and/or evolution of life on Earth from his pulpit? That is essentially what you are demanding with your position.
Who put the burr under your saddle? The pursuit of science is part of the quest for understanding the truth of our existence - whether or not you want to acknowledge it. Perhaps its just a problem in the semantics we're each using. I'm not placing a judgment on what you 'grasp' on this topic & you don't know me well enough to tell me what my "problems" are. Lighten up on the judgments please!
Learning about science is learning the evidence and the scientific theories that are based on that evidence. Practicing science is a pursuit of understanding. Until you know science, you can't practice it.
And no, the semantics are not the problem. You want to explain the origin of life, the diversity of life and the purpose of life all in one simple answer, and that answer is based in religious theology.
Evolution only takes on the diversity of life. It has nothing to do with the other two. The fact that it doesn't explain them is not a problem for Evolution nor scientists. Want to know the purpose of life? Meditate and think about it for yourself. Want to know the origin of life? Go to the anthropologists (who are all well educated in evolutionary theory) and demand an immediate answer. You'll get more than you can ever absorb, all with spacious evidence and a lot of guessing.
There is no way to teach ID nor creationism as a scientific topic. None, zero, zip, nada. Why? No evidence, no data, nothing that can be repeated, falsified, tested and verified. Without that, it is just another crackpot theory without teeth and it belongs in the dustbin until such time as it has all of those things. Unfortunately for ID and creationism, by the very definitions of those theories those things don't exist.
So you can be polite, you can chastise me for being nasty, you can appear to be pious and generous and compassionate, but you still don't know what you're talking about.
No one needs theistic beliefs to be moral, kind, compassionate and find purpose in life. Only the religious seem to need the fear of retribution from an angry god, or the promise of a reward for being good to justify their daily intentions and actions.
As well, how did your original accusation in any way add to the discussion of teaching religion in science class?
Craig, I appreciate what I sense is a desire for some middle ground on your part. Jay, I experience you as arrogant, angry & judgmental towards anyone who doesn't share the same view as your own. Your need to ridicule anyone you percieve to have any kind of theistic viewpoint is unfortunate. I hope you will reconsider that in the future.
How should I handle it when people like Marion say "it is just a theory", and despite being corrected dozens of times continues to misunderstand a scientific theory with an idea-theory.
How should I handle it when people like Marion make the claim that no transitional forms have been found or that no new species have been seen in a laboratory environment? Or maybe I should be kind and gentle to Kirk Cameron who believes that today's bananas somehow prove the existence of God, even when it is easily accessible knowledge that can show that 100 years ago bananas were a completely different shape and almost a completely different fruit?
How many times should I tell the same set of people that they are making mistakes, that they need to stop the misinformation and try to understand that evolution is backed by centuries of experiments, data and documented facts? How should I go about explaining that favorable mutations have a 1.9% chance of "setting" into the genealogical trees of species while unfavorable mutations have a .1% chance?
Dave, thank you for your calm understanding. Let's lift our glasses in an Irish toast to Jay:
May those that love us, love us.
And those that don’t love us,
May God turn their hearts.
And if he doesn’t turn their hearts,
May he turn their ankles,
So we’ll know them by their limping.