Dean Esmay stirs the pot on the evolution v. creation question vis-a-vis schools and creates, as he is good at doing, an interesting discussion on his site.
I have noted this issue emerging on several blogs (another example here) over the last several weeks. One thing that strikes me about the discussion is that both sides typically argue from dogmatic positions and that both sides want to exclude ideas. The pro-evolution side is as much vested in protecting its worldview as is the anti-evolution side, despite the argument that all they are doing is protecting science from theology. Quite honestly the conversation really isn’t about how the universe was created, rather it is about whether an endorsement of a theistic v. atheistic view of the universe. I would argue most vociferously that, as such, the argument over evolution is a proxy for an argument over God.
And, I am sorry, but to mention of the idea that an intelligence beyond man might be responsible for creation is not establishment of religion. The Supreme Court has not required the eradication of all references to a theist view of the universe.
And I am the other side of the coin represented by Dean: I am an evangelical Christian who doesn’t see the big harm done if my children are exposed to discussions of evolution. Firstly, I am not convinced that exposure to such ideas leads to the vitiation of Christian theology (for example, if seven days aren’t seven literal days, how does that undercut the foundational principle of the faith?). Secondly, there should be no reason to stop people from being exposed to different ideas (indeed, it should be encouraged–go read Mill’s On Liberty, section II for cryin’ out loud).
I will note, for the record, that I am not sure that I care if a science text mentions intelligent design or not. I further agree that there is a good deal of junk science associated with theological attempts to explain creation (I could recount a rather ridiculous example I once witnessed wherein the Loch Ness monster was used to explain a young earth theory…). However, the pro-evolution side, if it is honest with itself, has to also admit that there are real scientists with legitimate training, who also subscribe to versions of inteligent design/who have legitimate science-based criticisms of macro-evolution.
The bottom line of all of this is that both sides need to ask themselves if they are so insecure about their positions that they can’t allow for free discussion. Also, the secular humanists need to get over the idea that just because someone doesn’t accept macro-evolutionary theory that such persons are to be considered no better, intellectually, than flat-earthers (that is just condescension and not part of rational argument–especially from persons who are allegedly arguing from the more rational position).
Getting back to Mill, consider the following:
We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.First: the opinion which it is attempted to suppress by authority may possibly be true.
[…]
Let us now pass to the second division of the argument, and dismissing the supposition that any of the received opinions may be false, let us assume them to be true, and examine into the worth of the manner in which they are likely to be held, when their truth is not freely and openly canvassed. However unwillingly a person who has a strong opinion may admit the possibility that his opinion may be false, he ought to be moved by the consideration that however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth.
[…]
But there is a commoner case than either of these; when the conflicting doctrines, instead of being one true and the other false, share the truth between them; and the nonconforming opinion is needed to supply the remainder of the truth, of which the received doctrine embodies only a part. Popular opinions, on subjects not palpable to sense, are often true, but seldom or never the whole truth. They are a part of the truth; sometimes a greater, sometimes a smaller part, but exaggerated, distorted, and disjoined from the truths by which they ought to be accompanied and limited. Heretical opinions, on the other hand, are generally some of these suppressed and neglected truths, bursting the bonds which kept them down, and either seeking reconciliation with the truth contained in the common opinion, or fronting it as enemies, and setting themselves up, with similar exclusiveness, as the whole truth. The latter case is hitherto the most frequent, as, in the human mind, one-sidedness has always been the rule, and many-sidedness the exception.
It’s almost the holidays, so just go read the whole thing.
JSM was the MAN.
Comment by Steven L. — Tuesday, November 23, 2024 @ 3:06 pm
Final Post on ID, Evolution, Etc.
I’m pretty much done with the evolution discussion, but those of you craving more may want to go read Steven Taylor’s piece.
I wouldn’t have linked i…
Trackback by Dean's World — Wednesday, November 24, 2024 @ 12:41 am
Final Post on ID, Evolution, Etc.
I’m pretty much done with the evolution discussion, but those of you craving more may want to go read Steven Taylor’s piece.
I wouldn’t have linked i…
Trackback by Dean's World — Wednesday, November 24, 2024 @ 12:41 am
Steven,
You wrote
Ah, but you see, that’s the nub of the matter: there aren’t any such scientists. I’ve been strongly interested in the creation-evolution controversy for about ten years now, and have read a large number of books from both sides. I have yet to find any “intelligent design” (ID) argument that is based on valid science, or any ID advocate who is not motivated by religion. Most arguments in favor of ID are simply rewritten versions of arguments that were being used against evolution by creationists a hundred years ago. They even use creationist books and journals as their primary references. Those arguments are just as wrong now as they were a century ago, and even a few hours of research proves them to be wrong. Which means that the “evidence” pushed by IDers just doesn’t qualify as “scientific.”
More than that, the tactics used by ID advocates prove they know their ideas can’t stand up on their own. I was involved in the controversy in Ohio over teaching “criticisms of evolutionary theory,” an idea which also came from IDers. The list of references they wanted to use was bizarre: without exception, every one of the pro-evolution works they chose to list was outdated, hard to find, and/or written by professional scientists for professional scientists or college students, not for high schoolers. There wasn’t even a mention of the dozens of good pro-evolution books written for the public over the last few years, using all the most recent research and discoveries in fossils, genetics, anatomy, etc. On the other hand, every one of the anti-evolution works was relatively recent, written for laymen, and readily available in most libraries or bookshops. The IDers even had plans to donate copies of those books to school libraries, to make sure they had them. A fair and unbiased analysis of evolution was clearly the last thing the IDers wanted!
The majority of evolution-defenders that I know would welcome an honest science-based discussion of the merits and flaws of evolutionary theory. What we object to is attacks on evolutionary theory that are based on lies — and that’s all the ID movement has to offer.
Comment by wolfwalker — Wednesday, November 24, 2024 @ 7:46 am
Now there’s an objective response to Intelligent Design proponents - they’re just nothing but liars! No caveats, no qualifiers, just a bunch of liars.
One of the main reasons that evolution skeptics spend so much time on old discredited evolutionary texts is that so much of the discredited stuff keeps hanging on in new school textbooks, decades after it was tagged for the dustbin. That’s the kind of thing that happens when one train of thought or belief is kept immune from challenge by law for such a long time.
Comment by John Raynes — Wednesday, November 24, 2024 @ 9:15 am
Nah, it isn’t this debate which keeps old discredited evolution stuff in textbooks. Textbooks almost never represent correctly the “state of the art” of any science. Part of that is valid - part of the curriculum is to teach simple, wrong, but still useful models (like the Bohr atom in Chemistry, or newtonian Physics), but part of it is a tendency for the middle school textbook writer to be someone who is away from the cutting edge - a BA or MA in that science whose knowledge is out of date. In the physical sciences this isn’t that important - Chemistry or Physics don’t “change” very often. Biology does change, fairly quickly - we are still learning a lot. Most textbooks haven’t even caught up with the 60’s era debate about gradual vs. punctuated equalibrium evolution.
This shows really strongly in the social sciences. You still learn garbage like Freudian “Id, Ego, Superego” in high school psychology, simple MPC Keynesianism in economics, etc. These paradigms have all been superceded, but they have been superceded by theories which are beyond the scope of a high-school level class, so they teach what is simple enough to teach to bored highschoolers, so they teach what they can - which is often simple, logical, and wrong.
The teaching of a model of evolution which is outdated or overly simplified is partly a necessary evil, partly a function of who is doing the teaching and curriculum. It isn’t really being caused by crystalization of beliefs, except to the extent that the teacher/writer hasn’t received updated knowledge.
Education schools make this worse - they aren’t taught by experts in subject matter, they are taught by people who were taught by people who were taught by experts in subject matter, so the subject matter taught is often out of date. Even the teaching methods taught tend to be based on theory that lags about 20 years or more behind the state of the art in psychology, content lags even further behind.
Comment by rvman — Wednesday, November 24, 2024 @ 9:45 am
Indeed and amen (if I may use the term):
Comment by Steven Taylor — Wednesday, November 24, 2024 @ 9:48 am
Steven,
As a scientist I have no problem with the idea of scientifically working with the possibility of a creative force in the universe. My problem is that right now there is no science behind the concept. What we teach in the science classroom is what has withstood the challenge of the harshest treatment that academia can offer. It deserves to be there. My problem is that the supporters of ID want to totally bypass that process and have their beliefs (there is no research for it to be called knowledge yet) put into the classroom wrongly. This is why you see school board fights, lawsuits, and books in the mall instead of real research and publications. This whole process is religiously (not scientifically) motivated which is why it can be unconstitutional (according to the first part of the Lemon test). Behe, Dembski and Wells have all made that clear in churches around the country. Get some labs, do some research, write some publications and then I will respect ID.
Comment by Joshua White — Wednesday, November 24, 2024 @ 10:40 am
Understand: I am not defending ID, per se. What I am defending is that idea that the mere mention of the concept that there might be a Creator is going to turn kids’ heads to mush is a bit extreme. Further, I am arguing that many who support evolution/oppose ID or some other theistic view of things, often attack this issue with religious fervor equal to that of the anti-evolutionists.
Comment by Steven Taylor — Wednesday, November 24, 2024 @ 10:48 am
Quite frankly I am a moderate on this topic (indeed, I suspect many of my church-going friends might even consider me liberal on this one). What I find interesting is that many who argue the evolutionist side base their position primarily on an anti-theistic view and simply base what they know on reading some books and listening to some experts (which is precisely how most anti-evolutionists reach their positions). Now, one can argue over the quality of the experts, but there are some clear parallels here–and it often comes down to belief on both sides. (And I don’t direct that comment at the scientists themselves, as that is a different issue entirely).
Comment by Steven Taylor — Wednesday, November 24, 2024 @ 10:51 am
What we teach in the science classroom is what has withstood the challenge of the harshest treatment that academia can offer.
That is the funniest line I’ve read all week.
Comment by bryan — Wednesday, November 24, 2024 @ 11:59 am
Steven,
A fair point. Indeed, there are evolution-defenders who are as you describe — too many of them, if you ask me. However, there are also plenty of evolution-defenders who don’t just “read some books and listen to some experts.” Many evolution-defenders are themselves career scientists or college science professors. Many more are interested amateurs — interested enough to learn the subject so thoroughly that even career scientists and professors consider them experts. These people don’t believe evolutionary theory and reject ID because somebody else told them to. They believe the one and reject the other because they’ve seen the original evidence up close and personal, and the evidence says “evolution happened.”
Comment by wolfwalker — Wednesday, November 24, 2024 @ 12:26 pm
Indeed–and my previous comment was intended to exclude those folks from my criticism.
However, explain to me why it damages the presentation of the theory of evolution to suggest that there may be a Creator?
Comment by Steven Taylor — Wednesday, November 24, 2024 @ 12:37 pm
Steven,
It doesn’t. What damages the presentation of evolutionary theory as science is the suggestion that the arguments of anti-evolutionists have any scientific merit. They don’t. Some of them never did. Others did once, but not any more. The last sensible objection to evolutionary theory was demolished forty years ago when geneticists started unraveling the secrets of DNA, and microbiologists started exploring the hidden world of the cell. The only possible scientific use for anti-evolutionists’ claims would be as a roadmap for how to teach evolutionary theory. That is, many of the questions raised by anti-evolutionists are valid: they’re the questions evolutionary theory had to answer in order to be accepted. Showing how the theory answered those questions would be a good way to teach the theory in the classroom.
But that’s not what the anti-evolutionists want. They don’t want students to get the answers evolutionary theory provides to those questions. They want students to be taught that evolutionary theory can’t answer their questions … with an attendant implication that creationism is a scientifically valid alternative. And that’s simply wrong.
Comment by wolfwalker — Wednesday, November 24, 2024 @ 6:54 pm
[…] rse is a vital part of liberal democracy. http://poliblogger.com/?p=5391â€?>Again, I would remind us all of the words of J.S. Mill: We can never be sure that the opinion we ar […]
Pingback by PoliBlog: Politics is the Master Science » More on Dealing with Ideological Rivals — Tuesday, December 28, 2024 @ 7:17 pm
payday loan
You may find it interesting to check some helpful info about payday loan cash advance credit card
Trackback by payday loan — Sunday, March 27, 2024 @ 7:11 am
[…] nd Hitler would have been Hitler had he written the book or not. I found the inclusion of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty (one of my personal favorites) on the “Honorable Mentionâ€? list (shouldn’ […]
Pingback by PoliBlog: Politics is the Master Science » The Evil that Books Do — Wednesday, June 1, 2024 @ 10:57 am