Let's Have No More Monkey Trials - To teach faith as science is to undermine both

Time Magazine ^ | Monday, Aug. 01, 2005 | CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

[wallcrawlr]

The half-century campaign to eradicate any vestige of religion from public life has run its course. The backlash from a nation fed up with the A.C.L.U. kicking crèches out of municipal Christmas displays has created a new balance. State-supported universities may subsidize the activities of student religious groups. Monuments inscribed with the Ten Commandments are permitted on government grounds. The Federal Government is engaged in a major antipoverty initiative that gives money to churches. Religion is back out of the closet.

But nothing could do more to undermine this most salutary restoration than the new and gratuitous attempts to invade science, and most particularly evolution, with religion. Have we learned nothing? In Kansas, conservative school-board members are attempting to rewrite statewide standards for teaching evolution to make sure that creationism's modern stepchild, intelligent design, infiltrates the curriculum. Similar anti-Darwinian mandates are already in place in Ohio and are being fought over in 20 states. And then, as if to second the evangelical push for this tarted-up version of creationism, out of the blue appears a declaration from Christoph Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna, a man very close to the Pope, asserting that the supposed acceptance of evolution by John Paul II is mistaken. In fact, he says, the Roman Catholic Church rejects "neo-Darwinism" with the declaration that an "unguided evolutionary process--one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence--simply cannot exist."

Cannot? On what scientific evidence? Evolution is one of the most powerful and elegant theories in all of human science and the bedrock of all modern biology. Schönborn's proclamation that it cannot exist unguided--that it is driven by an intelligent designer pushing and pulling and planning and shaping the process along the way--is a perfectly legitimate statement of faith. If he and the Evangelicals just stopped there and asked that intelligent design be included in a religion curriculum, I would support them. The scandal is to teach this as science--to pretend, as does Schönborn, that his statement of faith is a defense of science. "The Catholic Church," he says, "will again defend human reason" against "scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of 'chance and necessity,'" which "are not scientific at all." Well, if you believe that science is reason and that reason begins with recognizing the existence of an immanent providence, then this is science. But, of course, it is not. This is faith disguised as science. Science begins not with first principles but with observation and experimentation.

In this slippery slide from "reason" to science, Schönborn is a direct descendant of the early 17th century Dutch clergyman and astronomer David Fabricius, who could not accept Johannes Kepler's discovery of elliptical planetary orbits. Why? Because the circle is so pure and perfect that reason must reject anything less. "With your ellipse," Fabricius wrote Kepler, "you abolish the circularity and uniformity of the motions, which appears to me increasingly absurd the more profoundly I think about it." No matter that, using Tycho Brahe's most exhaustive astronomical observations in history, Kepler had empirically demonstrated that the planets orbit elliptically.

This conflict between faith and science had mercifully abated over the past four centuries as each grew to permit the other its own independent sphere. What we are witnessing now is a frontier violation by the forces of religion. This new attack claims that because there are gaps in evolution, they therefore must be filled by a divine intelligent designer.

How many times do we have to rerun the Scopes "monkey trial"? There are gaps in science everywhere. Are we to fill them all with divinity? There were gaps in Newton's universe. They were ultimately filled by Einstein's revisions. There are gaps in Einstein's universe, great chasms between it and quantum theory. Perhaps they are filled by God. Perhaps not. But it is certainly not science to merely declare it so.

To teach faith as science is to undermine the very idea of science, which is the acquisition of new knowledge through hypothesis, experimentation and evidence. To teach it as science is to encourage the supercilious caricature of America as a nation in the thrall of religious authority. To teach it as science is to discredit the welcome recent advances in permitting the public expression of religion. Faith can and should be proclaimed from every mountaintop and city square. But it has no place in science class. To impose it on the teaching of evolution is not just to invite ridicule but to earn it.

[MEGoody]

Example please.

Read the thread. Anyone who dares to question the theory of evolution is showered with shrill vitriol rather than being treated with respect while the questions are answered.

This is the same type of behavior that happens any time and any where questions about evolution are raised.

I can only conclude that there is fear behind all this venom. . .fear that the theory of evolution will be replaced and the evols world view will be challenged.

[b_sharp]

"Yes based on material evidence...manuscripts, archeology and fulfilled prophecies."

"Christian faith also falls into the #1 category."

Acceptable evidence from that list:
Manuscripts that are corroborated by other documents and physical evidence. And don't require belief that runs counter to know physical processes.
Archeology that verifies events, not places.
Fulfilled prophecies that... oops...sorry, fulfilled prophecies aren't acceptable.

[Analog Artist]

uh-uh.. your claims of having any proof for that incestuous creationist crap of yours is utterly self-delusional.

[Analog Artist]

well then lets change your punishment.. how about forceful copulation with a certain Helen Thomas (she already made an advanced reservation here) ;)

[b_sharp]

Ho ho ho.

[b_sharp]

I knew there was a reasoon for the smell.

[atlaw]

You've failed to point out any "problems" in my analogy, however.

Other than its inapplicability to the issue of Genesis vs. the physical evidence? (Or more precisely, one particular interpretation of Genesis vs. the physical evidence?)

There is no problem with the physical evidence

I agree. It is problem free evidence. The question is what to infer from the evidence.

What do you infer from the evidence cited in support of evolution, and if it is other than evolution, what alternative inference do you offer?

to set aside the "note" is indeed a slander on an unimpeachable character

I'm not setting aside Genesis (the "note"), and a great many others aren't setting it aside either (hence, a "problem" with your analogy).

You, on the other hand, seem to be setting aside the evidence.

premises control EVERYONE's handling of evidence

Indeed. And the question is whether the premises is guided by the evidence, or the evidence is tainted by the premises.

The only question is the truth or fallacy of the premises.

But of course, this isn't the "only" question. There's the evidence to consider, isn't there?

Thanks for sharing your feelings, anyway.

You're welcome.

[b_sharp]

Precognition?

[Rockingham]

Well-taken.

Here's an off the cuff analysis of some of my favorite scientific gaps and mysteries:

(1) Most of the matter and energy in the universe is apparently so called "dark" matter and energy that we can only dimly detect. The properties of dark matter and dark energy are essentially unknown. As they become known, the rules of physics will have to be rewritten.

(2) Modern quantum mechanics consistently demonstrates in theory and experiment that consciousness and intentionality change matter and energy, at least at extreme small scales. Since the material universe is essentially quantum mechanics writ large, the staggering implication is that human consciousness has dimensions that are far beyond current scientific understanding and include free will.

(3) Modern physics has some glaring defects, such as its inability to explain gravity, and it is approaching a crisis as scientific evidence accumulates against many of the its tenets, formulas, and constants. Those defects and controversies do not prove or disprove the existence of God, but they do refute the implicit assertion that modern science has Godlike knowledge.

(4) Despite their insistence that facts rule and mysteries ought to be investigated by science, many modern scientists are unable to do so when the results endanger the relentless materialism of modern science. My favorite example is that in the mid 1970's, a Pentagon contract tasked a top notch scientific think tank with investigating the claims of natural psychic Ingo Swann.

The scientists were expecting to easily discredit Swann as deluded or a con man. But he easily demonstrated the ability to jiggle a highly shielded seismograph by thought alone. Swann's talents at what is now known as remote viewing were verified, to the immense distress of some of the original scientific investigators. Several had what any cleric would recognize as a crisis of faith. Other scientists, to their credit, took the results as scientific evidence and extended the work. Similar reactions have occurred whenever scientific materialism has been challenged by contrary evidence.

(5) As odd as it may seem, the public, with its religious faith and interest in ghosts, near death experiences, reincarnation, UFOs, ESP, and so on, may in the end be closer to the truth than science's reflexive skeptics and debunkers. Quantum mechanics has demonstrated that matter and consciousness interact, but many if not most scientists refuse to accept the implications as extending beyond the narrow confines of particular physics experiments. The appearance of similar phenomena among humans and animals and in other experimental contexts is characteristically ignored by mainstream science.

(6) The information processing capacity of the human brain is so large that it bests supercomputers. As artificial intelligence proves ever more elusive despite advances in software and processors, some experts have concluded that there must be a mechanism or process in the human brain not yet recognized which explains human intelligence. One possibility is that the microtubules in human brain cells and most other cells may have quantum effects, being natural processors of a type beyond current technology.

As remarkable as the universe is, human beings are the most remarkable and valuable things in it. Science halfway endorses that insight in concept, but Christianity and Judaism, for all their defects and faults, take the implications far more seriously than so many scientists do.

[atlaw]

Sorry. I'm not sure why BibChr pinged you to our discussion, but he seemed to feel it was important. I'll abide by his wishes. You are hereby pinged to post 947.

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . your claims of having any proof . . .

It is not for me to make claims of proof, nor have I done so. It is for you to carry on according to natural form, and thus demonstrate further the accuracy of the biblical texts in describing human nature apart from divine intervention.

[atlaw]

Reason is best served with a side of temperance.

[b_sharp]

"Much passes under the umbrella of "science" that does not utilize the "scientific method."(more on that later). Most importantly, psychology, which relies heavily on Kantian philosophy. "

That's funny. I have a B.A. in psychology and I definitely remember taking and using the scientific method in a number of classes.

"As to the identification of science and the scientific method, that is not true. Dawkins' atheism is founded on that identification, assuming that knowledge--the content of science--is what we know through the scientific method and that what we do not know will be known at some time in the future.

How does that help us in a discussion of what science is and is not? You seem to be requiring that science encompass all methods of acquiring knowledge. Science only encompasses knowledge that is evidenced through the use of methodological naturalism which is a set of procedures that allow us to understand the physical world.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that science proclaims all knowledge attainable, but it really doesn't fit in with the science and scientists I know.

"Thus miracles are categorically impossible even though one happens before one's eyes.

Are you suggesting that miracles, or the study of miracles, should be considered science? Miracles by definition are supernatural, something which science does not deal with, simply because, by their very nature miracles are unfalsifiable.

I think you are playing loose and fast with the definition of science.

[ICE-FLYER]

"Precisely. ICE-FLYER is either ignorant of the scientific definition of the word or lying to make a point."

Highball, Sorry to not get back to you right away, I was too busy being ignorant of many other things and screwing up society for the rest of my community by coming up with new lies.

I've not had the benefit of a raging flamer like you here. It’s not too often that I can be taken so wildly out of context. Now, either you are lying to make your point here or you just don’t want to get that I don't want this Theory taught as though it were the only fact on the issue of how we came to be. It’s pretty simple really. It IS a theory, one POSSIBLE theory, it DOES have a lot of evidence to suggest, and evidence of fact, but it stands as a theory which is unproven in total. And my ONLY problem with the teaching of it is how some go about doing so. If you can't understand this than I can’t help you and I could care less your mindless labels.

"I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and say ignorant, but willful and continued ignorance isn't much better."

Oh...I am glad that you are soooo benevolent to me to "Give" me the benefit of your personal doubt and share it with others.

[b_sharp]

LOTFLFAO

Thanks. I needed that.

[ICE-FLYER]

Ironic his reply to you was post # 666! :) I know some will fly off the handle at me for this post but ease up...its humor!

[eleni121]

He is an MD? Oh Wow...so was Mengele.

[b_sharp]

"Certainly, but I doubt you could out-drink me."

Only one way to find out. You start drinking, let me know via FR after each drink. I'll keep count and trust you won't cheat. After you pass out let me know. After I record the number of drinks you imbibe, I'll start my own drinking and keep count as well. When I pass out, I'll let you know, via FR again of course, who won. Does that sound reasonable?

[Rockingham]

Putting faith aside, I have known Jews whom I disagreed with on many things nevertheless to have admirable personal virtues, sometimes to a fault. The rabbinic tradition incorporates much wisdom about the human condition.

Put aside your understandable irritation at Jewish liberal politics and take a look at the wider range of Jewish political thought -- which includes resolute conservatives, who are growing in influence and numbers. A close Jewish Republican conservative friend of mine has been startled again and again in the last few years at the willingness of formerly resistent liberal Jews to listen to his political pitches.

In the third article linked below, Jewish academic David Novak urges that "Religion in American does not belong in the closet." How many nominally Christian professors would make the same declaration in their public writing?

http://www.towardtradition.org/pr_aajc.htm

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:7j8lwL9B7MwJ:keshetjts.org/sources/ForwardArticle.doc+jewish+conservative+american+david+novak&hl=en&client=firefox-a

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:3Od9pWOxuoUJ:www.bc.edu/bc_org/research/rapl/courses/SC_536_paper/Novak.pdf+maimonides+jewish+sage+conservative+american+politics&hl=en&client=firefox-a

[highball]

It IS a theory, one POSSIBLE theory, it DOES have a lot of evidence to suggest, and evidence of fact, but it stands as a theory which is unproven in total. And my ONLY problem with the teaching of it is how some go about doing so. If you can't understand this than I can’t help you and I could care less your mindless labels.

Yeah, right. "Mindless labels." That pesky, inconvenient scientific method....

You keep using the words "theory" and "proof" as though the first requires the second for any validity. It doesn't. There is plenty of evidence to support it, that's why it's called a "theory."

The Theory of Evolution is the only scientific theory that fits the facts. After a couple hundred years of opposition to evolution, its opponents have come up with... absolutely zero. Diddly squat. El zippo.

That's why it may be taught with conviction. There's no need to try and make it seem as though it was somehow shaky - it's as solid as any scientific theory can be.

I never said that I had a problem problem with alternate theories being taught side by side with evolution. I support that wholeheartedly. As soon as one is posited, let us know.

In the meantime, evolution should and will continue to be taught as the only theory that even remotely fits the evidence.