President Confuses Science and Belief, Puts Schoolchildren at Risk

American Geophysical Union ^ | 2 August 2005 | American Geophysical Union

[Right Wing Professor]

WASHINGTON - "President Bush, in advocating that the concept of 'intelligent design' be taught alongside the theory of evolution, puts America's schoolchildren at risk," says Fred Spilhaus, Executive Director of the American Geophysical Union. "Americans will need basic understanding of science in order to participate effectively in the 21st century world. It is essential that students on every level learn what science is and how scientific knowledge progresses."

In comments to journalists on August 1, the President said that "both sides ought to be properly taught." "If he meant that intelligent design should be given equal standing with the theory of evolution in the nation's science classrooms, then he is undermining efforts to increase the understanding of science," Spilhaus said in a statement. "'Intelligent design' is not a scientific theory." Advocates of intelligent design believe that life on Earth is too complex to have evolved on its own and must therefore be the work of a designer. That is an untestable belief and, therefore, cannot qualify as a scientific theory."

"Scientific theories, like evolution, relativity and plate tectonics, are based on hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification," Spilhaus says. "The President has unfortunately confused the difference between science and belief. It is essential that students understand that a scientific theory is not a belief, hunch, or untested hypothesis."

"Ideas that are based on faith, including 'intelligent design,' operate in a different sphere and should not be confused with science. Outside the sphere of their laboratories and science classrooms, scientists and students alike may believe what they choose about the origins of life, but inside that sphere, they are bound by the scientific method," Spilhaus said.

AGU is a scientific society, comprising 43,000 Earth and space scientists. It publishes a dozen peer reviewed journal series and holds meetings at which current research is presented to the scientific community and the public.

[js1138]

That's a informal logical fallacy, argument ad ignoratium: Concluding/assuming that something is true (say, evolution) because it cannot be disproved.

But that's not how science works. Science is an iterative process of collecting evidence, speculating about causes and relationships, testing the speculations with experiments or additional evidence, and revising the hypotheses.

Nowhere in this process is anything proved in a logical or mathematical sense. Theories and hypotheses are supported by evidence or contradicted by evidence. It's a matter of degrees of confidence.

[Dimensio]

Simply asking if not ID, then what organized the universe?

In abscence of evidence for any explanations, "I don't know" is the most honest response.

is a scientific question, avoided by science because of it's implications.

No, it's simply not addressed because thus far there is no objective evidence for any explanation.

[muawiyah]

I think God gave us apes to remind us of where we came from. Now you may well disagree with God on the matter, but that's your business.

[Dimensio]

it states that life is too complex and well designed to have been formed just by a bunch of random accidents.

Which I've always thought is a rather arrogant statement. How can anyone claim to know enough about the fundamental properties of matter to conclude, with certainty, that life cannot form from "nonliving" matter?

[Right Wing Professor]

Prokaryotes, Eukaryotes,

Just to name one of a hundred examples, the ribosomal proteins of prokaryotes and eukaryotes are highly homologous. There is also substantial genomic evidence eukaryotic organelles (mitochondria, chloroplasts) were originally prokaryotic symbiotes.

[AMHN]

Such eloquent bullsh*t.. Any moron who believes that Intelligent Design is "scientific" is a pathetic self-deluding loser who is merely seeking to supplant his own inferiority complex by persecuting scientists and their theories, as he cannot otherwise take them on intellectually.

I thank God for people like you to argue against my point. Such elloquence...I couldn't have taken a better stand for your side on any arguement. Your side needs more level head, elloquent, and intelligent speakers to make their point just as you have.

Just curious, how is that white stuff floating in a zero gravity space holding up.

[CasearianDaoist]

That is an interpretation - and a reasonable one, but it is not a test in any empirical sense. This is precisely the problem with the whole argument on both sides.

I do not have a dog in this fight at all. I have two degrees in Math, one in CS and in Philosophy (I do not consider CS to be a "Science" and I do not consider my self a "scientist," but I am using a very precise notion of what "science" is, an notion I might add that precludes much of what we call "science" today.) I have worked with world class physicists, some with Nobels, and have a great deal of professional exposure to science and much interest in it, but that interest is mostly from a formal point of view.

You cannot as a scientist really call this any sort of empirical test. No physicist would claim this "formulation" was anything more than supporting evidence that by inference supports a claim. Clearly, other inferences are possible. You are merely relying on relative plausibility to make your case, which is hardly an empirical test. It the logical, philosophical and methodological senses, I am afraid the IDers have got you here.

It is the nature of the problem, and one of the reasons that the whole endeavor has historically called "Natural Philosophy" until recently, though granted that as genetics advances and edge of this complaint dulls considerable.

But the two points seem to still logically stand: 1) Neither the ID theory or Evolutionist rebuttal to ID is "testable" in the sense that this person from the AGU suggests, and 2) It is therefore specious to claim that one has validity over the other purely on this basis.

My guess is that this is not really what you meant to say, but it is what you seem to be saying.

[k2blader]

I think this was (another) really dumb move by the Prez..

[Jaysun]

I have a theory: all land animals are descended from animals that lived in the sea millions of years ago. Let's test my theory! Ohhhhhhh, wait. We can't really test that can we? All we can do is theorize based on accumulated evidence. But we can't test it.

I guess Evolution can't qualify as a scientific theory. But some folks have a lot of faith in evolution. I guess people believe what they want, and if someone's Faith is centered on Evolution, I won't begrudge it.

You could always try a hoax (sew chicken wings on a monkey carcass or something of the like) just as the scientist do.

[Analog Artist]

Thats probably one of the best ways I model my own thoughts.. gravity tends to confine your thoughts, hence to be completely "free" you've to fight for zero gravity. The infinite white space and silvery liquid metal are for my wierd aesthetic taste. That tag line has got no bearing on my own rational views about nature and how we come from.

[Alter Kaker]

Is there that much controversy about Napoleon as there is about evolution? Are the people so fervently divided and outspoken about Napoleon, hmmm?

Depends on how you define controversy. If your question, how many bus drivers believe that Napoleon is real compared to how many bus drivers believe that evolution was real? Because if you ask bus drivers, there may well be "controversy." But in the academic community, there is no controversy at all.

[Dimensio]

By telling students there are different views about evolution it can only add to their education.

We should also tell students that there are different views on the solar system.

[rwfromkansas]

Silly argument.

If anybody actually believes that, they are not a major movement.

One of the main goals of education used to be developing critical thinking skills. It should still be that, and by censoring a major strain of thought on creation, students are not being taught how to critically examine ideas.

[bobhoskins]

You are perfectly free to consider your ancestors were apes.

I KNOW my parents were ...

[Rudder]

No, the belief that science (and science alone) can provide irrefutable answers to existential and metaphysical questions.

If you had read the article carefully, you would know the answer. Science does not deal with such issues. Science is a method of inquiry, not a belief system.

[rwfromkansas]

Excellent point. Unlike science, history can be proven.

[MEGoody]

"President Bush, in advocating that the concept of 'intelligent design' be taught alongside the theory of evolution, puts America's schoolchildren at risk," says Fred Spilhaus

LOL What a bunch of hooey.

[Manic_Episode]

Slightly histrionic title.

[rwfromkansas]

Note, I do not mean students should be indoctrinated into ID or that evolution be removed. Evolution is essential to the curriculum. But, by including ID in the discussion of origins, students learn things like analysis skills that at the end of the day will matter more than if they learned evolution at all (which isn't something you need to know unless you are a bio major anyway).

[VadeRetro]

AGU is a scientific society, comprising 43,000 Earth and space scientists.

So what? Discovery Institute has a list of 200 High School graduates who are skeptical of evolution.