Posted on 05/12/2005 10:21:51 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
“In fact, the breadth and extent of the anti-evolutionary movement that has spread almost unnoticed across the country should force American politicians to think twice about how their public expressions of religious belief are beginning to affect education and science. The deeply religious nature of the United States should not be allowed to stand in the way of the thirst for knowledge or the pursuit of science. Once it does, it won’t be long before the American scientific community—which already has trouble finding enough young Americans to fill its graduate schools—ceases to lead the world.” That is the editorial voice of the Washington Post which, on this subject as well as most others, is temperate compared with many others in the liberal establishment.
The alarm is prompted, of course, by the efforts of school districts to teach students that evolution is a theory. That evolution is a theory is a fact, unless somebody has changed the definition of theory without notifying the makers of dictionaries. The “search for knowledge” and “the pursuit of science,” one might suggest, will suffer grievously if we no longer respect the distinction between theory and fact. To argue that skepticism about the theory of evolution is inadmissible if it is motivated by religion is simply a form of antireligious bigotry. It is a fact that many devout Christians, many of whom are engaged in the relevant sciences, subscribe to the theory of evolution. It is also a fact that some scientists who reject religion also reject evolution, or think the theory highly dubious. That is the way it is with theories.
Theories are proposed principles or narratives that are both arrived at and tested by their explanatory force relative to what are taken to be known facts. To simply equate evolutionary theory with science is a form of dogmatism that has no place in the pursuit of truth. The problems with that approach are multiplied by the fact that there are such starkly conflicting versions of what is meant by evolution. The resistance to the theory is almost inevitable when it is propounded, as it often is, in an atheistic and materialistic form. Atheism and materialism are not science but ideologies that most people of all times and places, not just “red state” Americans, deem to be false. Proponents of “intelligent design” and other approaches, who are frequently well-certified scientists, contend that their theories possess greater explanatory power.
If someone claims the theory of evolution is false because it contradicts their understanding of what the Bible says, that is not a scientific argument in the ordinary meaning of science. It is an argument from the authority of the Bible, or at least from a certain interpretation of the Bible. One may make that argument in an eminently rational way, although in a way that will not be convincing to many people. Just as the theory of evolution is not convincing to many people. That is the way it is with arguments. The proponents of intelligent design, however, are not making their argument from the authority of the Bible but from what they are persuaded is the scientific evidence. Their opponents contend that their argument is discredited because most of them are Christian believers. Turnaround being fair play, one might answer that the more aggressive proponents of evolution are discredited because they are typically ideological atheists and materialists. These are religio-philosophical disputations of a low and ad hominem sort and have no place in what is, or should be, scientific methodology.
The great question of the origin and development of life in the cosmos is endlessly fascinating. Intellectual freedom and integrity require that all pertinent evidence and lines of reasoning be taken into account in forming speculations, hypotheses, and theories regarding that great question. It is a historical fact that evolutionary theory, variously construed, has achieved a status as “the truth” among most scientists in the century past. It has also had its very eloquent dissenters, such as David Berlinski whose work has received frequent attention in these pages (see Public Square, FT May 2004). For the past decade, we have had the scientific proponents of “intelligent design” sometimes frontally challenging and at other times offering significant modifications of the theory of evolution. The defenders of evolutionary orthodoxy raise the alarm at any suggestion of intelligent design or purpose, thereby implicitly endorsing a narrowly dogmatic version of evolutionary theory.
Some school boards have very modestly suggested that students should know that evolution is not the only theory about the origin and development of life. What they want students to know is an indisputable fact. There are other theories supported by very reputable scientists, including theories of evolution other than the established version to which students are now bullied into giving their assent. On any question, the rational and scientific course is to take into account all pertinent evidence and explanatory proposals. We can know that the quasi-religious establishment of a narrow evolutionary theory as dogma is in deep trouble when its defenders demand that alternative ideas must not be discussed or even mentioned in the classroom. Students, school boards, and thoughtful citizens are in fully justified rebellion against this attempted stifling of intellectual inquiry.
Fairness is important. I support Affirmative Action for religion. Religion should be allowed to share in the self-esteem of science.
Wonder if those who so push for no questioning of evolution also take the same position on teaching global warming to students as established fact.
And what of those who tie the South American pyramids with Egypt? Should we teach their theories in school as well?
Some lessons on science are "unfinished". We do students no favors by shielding them from the fact that there are things we "don't know".
Right! There's this, for example.
When light first came to the earth, O-ma-ma-ma the earth mother of the Cree people gave birth to the spirits of the world. The first born was Binay-sih, the thunderbird who protects the animals from the sea serpent, Genay-big. Thunderbirds shout out their unhappiness or anger with black clouds, rain and fire flashes in the sky. The second born was Ina-kaki, the lowly frog who heightens the sorcerer's powers and helps to control the insects in the world. The third born was the trickster Wee-sa-hay-jac, who can change himself into many forms or shapes to protect himself. The fourth child was Ma-heegun, Wee-sa-hay-jac's little wolf brother. They travel together with Wee-sa-hay-jac on his back. The fifth born was Amik the beaver, who is greatly respected because he is an unfortunate human from a different world. Fish, rocks, grasses, and trees all came from the womb of the great earth mother O-ma-ma-ma. The earth was inhabited a long time by only animals and spirits because Wee-sa-hay-jac had not yet made any people.
ID should not have to actually achieve anything before having self-esteem. We should honor it even when it fails basic tests, like declaring things to be irreducible that turn out not to be irreducible.
Grades on test are not important. Feelings are important.
This is but one of many ideological battles being waged in the classroom, a classroom where the students cannot question the materials.
Another would be the promotion of homosexuality as normal and acceptable.
Another would be the promotion of homosexuality as normal and acceptable.
One thing gov't school isn't about is a search for truth.
I also support this idea of Affirmative Action for religion. If those scientists won't let us call whatever we want "science", then it is incumbent upon the government to step in and make them call it science. It's only fair that if your ideas can't make it in the marketplace, the government should step in to support you.
This has been a deeply religious nation from its outset.
That fact hasn't interfered with our search for scientific knowledge, or the ability of Americans to utilize scientific knowledge obtained from that search.
The most innovative civilization of all time is deeply religious? How can it be? How CAN it be??
Thanks for your valuable insight.
Heaven, the creator, is called Amma. The stars represent the various bodily parts of Amma, while the constellation of Orion is called amma bolo boy tolo, "the seat of Heaven", or "Amma's navel". Amma split in two, creating Ogo, who represents disorder. Ogo descended to Earth in an ark, along the Milky Way which connects Heaven and Earth through a form of bridge, and he created havoc on Earth. Amma then decided to create an representative of order, called Nommo, and also created for him 8 assistants, comprising of 4 couples of twins. These 8 were called the ancestors of human beings, and they too descended to Earth in an ark, also created by Amma. The ark was suspended from Heaven by a copper chain, which allowed the ark to float down to Earth, like the Sun traverses the sky and settles in the west.
As a matter of interest, the believers construct a representation of the ark which is left in every home for ritual purposes; it is woven from dry leaves into a boat shaped basket.
The alarm is prompted, of course, by the efforts of school districts to teach students that evolution is a theory. That evolution is a theory is a fact, unless somebody has changed the definition of theory without notifying the makers of dictionaries. The “search for knowledge” and “the pursuit of science,” one might suggest, will suffer grievously if we no longer respect the distinction between theory and fact. To argue that skepticism about the theory of evolution is inadmissible if it is motivated by religion is simply a form of antireligious bigotry. It is a fact that many devout Christians, many of whom are engaged in the relevant sciences, subscribe to the theory of evolution. It is also a fact that some scientists who reject religion also reject evolution, or think the theory highly dubious. That is the way it is with theories.
You have to love his style.
A good take indeed. In accordance with Thomistic philosophy, there can be no conflict between God's Truth and scientific fact, since all Truth comes from God. To ban legitimate scientific inquiry is silly on either side.
Exactly.
Now let's get back to the name-calling and hand-waving. 8-)
I am all for fairness. ID finds no traction in the world of science, but that is unfair. Therefore, the government, in pursuit of fairness, must take upon itself the task of promoting ID. We cannot, after all, tolerate the intolerance of scientists who decline to accept ID as a part of science merely because it fails to meet the standard of what constitutes science. This shortcoming is unfair, and therefore, the state must change the standard and define science by fiat - after all, ID theorists did not define "science", so why should they have to be bound by such an unfair definition? I ask you, are we not eminently fair? What could be more fair than that?
I know youre being as smarmily sarcastic as you can be, but the fact is you do support affirmative action for the religious system known as Darwinism.
That is, you want the government to prevent any other viewpoints from Darwinism to be expressed in the public schools.
All those who do not support Darwinism ask simply for a free marketplace of ideas.
But the Darwinist establishment fights against such a free marketplace.
Keep posting this as you have been - I'm sure we haven't heard the end of the arguments yet.
Ironically, postmodernists have already "deconstructed" science. But any club will do in bashing critics of evolutionary dogma.
In truth, natural science cannot define its parameters. That is for the superior sciences of philosophy and theology. Theories regarding human origins regard philsophical and theological issues as much as, or even more than, scientific ones.
If you consider public schools a "marketplace", you haven't been paying attention.
Fr. Neuhaus is a Theistic evolutionist, but at least one who doesn't despise creationists or anti-evolutionists.
I continue to ask the people upset with religious objections to evolution in the American Heartland why many of them attack chr*stianity for destroying the pre-existing beliefs of "indigenous pipples" (implying that evolutionists have no wish to infect certain people with their "alien rationalism"). I continue to ask how this is different from what evolutionists themselves want to do with Biblical Fundamentalism in America.
I continue to ask why so many evolutionists are willing to permit us to believe in supernatural phenomena after the Creation but insist that the Creation itself have a purely naturalistic explanation.
I continue to ask these questions, and I continue to receive no answer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.