Evolution and Intelligent Design
Here is the first in what I expect will be a series of posts relating to the topic of ... well, thinking.
My friend Jeff just sent me a link to this article on Intelligent Design in Kansas schools. Here's my politically correct (if quickly written) reply to Jeff:
Solution: Two courses.
Course #1: Science. Principles of science, scientific method, experimental design, etc.
Course #2: Big Questions. How did we get here? What's the deal with Trump's hair?, etc.
Course #1 prepares students to use the scientific method to explore the world. There is absolutely no place for intelligent design in this course except of course as an example of how scientific examination can refute a theory.
Course #2 gives students some perspective on how we can take different perspectives on larger, unsolvable questions of life. Evolution is not THE answer to our questions, it's just the best SCIENTIFIC theory we have. The best non-scientific or FAITH-BASED theory is intelligent design. These are two ways of answering a question. Neither one is inherently better than the other, it's just that one is scientific (and therefore a better theory within the domain of science) and the other is faith-based (and therefore a better theory within the domain of religion or other non-scientific areas).
I don't object to the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution. These are both valid theories of how we got here. However, intelligent design is not a scientific theory and should never be taught as part of a science course. In fact, I'd go a step further and say that teaching intelligent design in a science class would give students a confused and conflicted concept of what science is.
I will go even one step further to claim that the high school science teachers who want to include intelligent design in their curriculum don't have a deep understanding of what science is themselves, and probably should not be teaching science.
posted by jay_morris @ 12:00 PM
12 comments
12 Comments:
Science is a religion that is incompatible with other religions. Our core tenets are equally unprovable, but have shown great predictive ability. There is only one god, and it is efficiency. Teaching other religions in a science classroom dilutes this fact.
ken.
Yikes...heavy topic for your first (well second) blog entry, Jay! I won't wade into this one much except to say that there are a number of famous scientists who find that the more they discover, the more they believe in intelligent design (I can't say I agree). Trying to separate science from the metaphysical and ethical questions that it generates has always bothered me. Could you not use the scientific method to study a "big question" such as "how did we get here?"
The scientific method is overrated anyway... ;-)
Dave
Hi Dave. Two thoughts. First, famous scientists can (and should) go to their churches and/or blogs to discuss their newfound faith. I hope they wouldn't sabatoge their own teaching of science by bringing its antithesis into their classrooms. These people can give talks with names like 'Reflections on my life as a scientist' on their own time.
Second, we are trying to use the scientific method to answer big questions like 'how did we get here?'. But our answers must always start with something like 'the evidence suggests ...' or 'our best guess is ...'. That is how scientific answers sound. Not very convincing from a pulpit, I know. That uncertainty gives people the (correct) impression that we don't have THE answers, but rather a good set of answers that seems to work best, and a pretty good system for guiding future questions and answers.
The basic underlying premise in scientific research is that we don't know what's going on and we never will know with absolute certainty, and that's just fine with me. This is the part that creationists don't seem to understand. Even when someone wears a white lab coat, they don't have THE answers.
Your last comment reminds me of something a philosophy prof once told me: "Truth is overrated". I'm pretty sure he's right about that (p<.001).
(man, it's hard to write organize thoughts in a 3x2" comment box)
Very serious talk! Should we also discuss when science goes to far? I would like to recommend a novel kinda related to this issue and(and a fun read too). It's Greg Isles'(spelling may be off as I lent out my copy) "Footprints of God". Enjoy if you like :)Lisa
Hi Lisa!
Looks like an interesting book. A very quick scan of some internet summaries of the story suggest that it is about a computer so powerful that it threatens to take over and do nasty things (a la Terminator). Scary stuff.
There is a very important distinction to be made between science and technology. Science is the process of answering questions about our world. Technology involves the application of knowledge (which is often gained through scientific investigation). Taking that understanding of the world and applying it to create something.
Engineering is *not* science! In fact, these two groups perform almost perfectly opposite jobs. Science is like reverse-engineering; looking at things that exist and breaking them down in different ways to see how they work. Engineering involves using knowledge about the world (provided via the process of science), and a whole other set of rules and procedures, to build new things.
*Technology* can certainly be taken too far (and is on a daily basis), but once you understand this distinction, it is hard to think of science going too far.
Do you mean evil cloning, as in "Attack of the"? Or wacky cloning, as in ... that 80's movie with Michael Keaton? ;)
We are using the scientific method to learn about stem cells, about how cells multiply, etc. That is science. And then we use other methods to take some stem cells and make something out of them. That is technology.
Science is simply a particular way of investigating the world we live in. It is a set of rules that guide the way that we collect and interpret information.
I think what is confusing here is that people who call themselves scientists ALSO do other things. For example, when I was at the University of Illinois, I was trying (briefly) to examine the relationship betwen visual attention and eye movements. I was using the scientific method to explore that part of our world, and I called myself a scientist (and still do) because I am a person who uses the scientific method to examine things.
While I was there, I also (briefly) got involved in a project where we tried to apply our knowledge about eye movements to create a computer tutorial system that tracked subjects' eyes and used that data to guide the lesson. While we worked on that project, questions would come up, and we would have to perform experiments to answer them (scientific method). But the majority of what we were doing there was engineering: applying the knowledge we had gained by scientific inquiry.
We could also have used what we knew about eye movements to create some sort of interesting torture device. That application of our knowledge (i.e., technology) would have been unethical, BUT what is not unethical is the scientific method which we used to gain the original knowledge.
This confusion between technology and science gets at the root of the problem in Kansas. People think that science involves a collection (noun) of facts, when in fact science involves THE collection (verb) of facts and the creation of theories based on those facts.
To bring this back to the original topic, intelligent design is a theory about the world that was created using a different non-scientific method. It also happens to be the case that the method used to create the intelligent design theory is completely incongruous with the scientific method. And that's fine! We all use different ways of figuring things out. However, it doesn't fit into a science class.
(Are these responses too long? I'm new to blogging! There are 17 more things I want to say about this!)
Question: have you read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? If not, I'd highly recommend it.
I started it a long time ago and was't into it, but I think I'm probbably more ready to read it now. Alas, who borrowed my copy?
Jay said: "We could also have used what we knew about eye movements to create some sort of interesting torture device. That application of our knowledge (i.e., technology) would have been unethical, BUT what is not unethical is the scientific method which we used to gain the original knowledge."
This is the part that bothers me...that a scientist doesn't have to worry about ethics because s/he is not responsible for the application of the new knowledge. So, someone developing a new nuclear physics theory doesn't have to worry that it could be used, unethically, for a weapon that would kill millions. I don't buy that...scientists can't be totally off the hook when it comes to the implications of their work. There has to be some recognition that science can step beyond society's ethical boundaries...as much as some scientists would like it, we don't work in a vaccuum. Cloning research is a current example where society may just not be ready for the potential implications...as K10 brought up earlier.
It's all about the comments, huh Kristen? ;)
I don't know, Dave. Are there taboo topics? Should some areas not be explored because of the potential for abuse? Maybe I'm an idealist, but I don't think that should stop us from investigating these areas. Maybe more importantly, I don't think it could. If the scientific community has worked it's way to this or that question, that's the next question it will work on. People are curious.
I'm not really clear on the negative ethical issues of stem cell research, but a) I think the positives are ... very positive; and b) I hope that we can avoid the negatives by managing the situation properly (e.g., there should be very carefully created policy before any of this research is applied).
Just to bring this back to the original point (and please continue on the current tangent below (or in the next post)), I hope people understand that for better or worse Science is a METHOD. The original post was meant to simply illustrate that teaching creationism in a science classroom is like teaching a vegetarian health class how to deep-fry a turkey. Sure you end up with something delicious, but you're using the wrong method, and you're giving people something they may not want.
Hmm...again, I disagree. I'd define science as the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, more akin to philosophy than methodology. The "scientific method" is the method - by which scientists are supposed to pursue this knowledge.
To sum up my feelings here, I don't have a problem with a science teacher saying that there are different views of how the world came to be, then briefly exposing students to the creationist argument (and possibly others!) before spending a lot more time on evolution. In fact, my grade school science teacher did just that. The more we are exposed to others' points of view, the better IMHO, especially as our society becomes more multicultural.
Post a Comment
<< Home