Posted on 08/30/2005 9:31:31 AM PDT by RightWingAtheist
Catching up on back news this past few days — I was out of the country for the first two weeks of August — I caught President Bush's endorsement of teaching Intelligent Design in public school science classes. "Both sides ought to be properly taught," President Bush told a reporter August 2, "so people can understand what the debate is all about."
This is Bush at his muddle-headed worst, conferring all the authority of the presidency on the teaching of pseudoscience in science classes. Why stop with Intelligent Design (the theory that life on earth has developed by a series of supernatural miracles performed by the God of the Christian Bible, for which it is pointless to seek any naturalistic explanation)? Why not teach the little ones astrology? Lysenkoism? Orgonomy? Dianetics? Reflexology? Dowsing and radiesthesia? Forteanism? Velikovskianism? Lawsonomy? Secrets of the Great Pyramid? ESP and psychokinesis? Atlantis and Lemuria? The hollow-earth theory? Does the president have any idea, does he have any idea, how many varieties of pseudoscientific flapdoodle there are in the world? If you are going to teach one, why not teach the rest? Shouldn't all sides be "properly taught"? To give our kids, you know, a rounded picture? Has the president scrutinized Velikovsky's theories? Can he refute them? Can you?
And every buncombe theory — every one of those species of twaddle that I listed — has, or at some point had, as many adherents as Intelligent Design. The hollow-earth theory was taken up by the Nazis and taught, as the Hohlweltlehre, in German schools. It still has a following in Germany today. Velikovsky's theories — he believed that Jupiter gave birth to a giant comet which, after passing close to earth and causing the miracles of the Book of Exodus, settled down as the planet Venus — were immensely popular in the 1950s and generated heated controversy, with angry accusations by the Velikovskians that they were being shut out by closed-minded orthodox astronomers determined to protect their turf, etc., etc. Lysenkoism was state doctrine in Stalin's Russia and was taught at the most prestigious universities. Expressing skepticism about it could get you shot. (Likewise with the bizarre linguistic theories of Stalin's protégé N.Y. Marr, who believed that every word in every human language derived from one of four basic elements, pronounced "sal," "ber," "yon," and "rosh." I tell you, the house of pseudoscience has many, many mansions.) Dianetics was rebranded as Scientology and is now a great force in the land — try criticizing it, and you'll find out.
Nor is any of these theories lacking in a certain appeal, as Martin Gardner, from whose book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science I compiled that list, is charitable enough to point out. Of Lawsonomy — "The earth is a huge organism operating by Suction and Pressure..." — Gardner says generously: "This makes more sense than one might think." Pseudoscience is in fact a fascinating study, though as sociology, not as science. Gardner's book, now 50 years old, is still an excellent introduction, and great fun to read.
What, then, should we teach our kids in high-school science classes? The answer seems to me very obvious. We should teach them consensus science, and we should teach it conservatively. Consensus science is the science that most scientists believe ought to be taught. "Conservatively" means eschewing theories that are speculative, unproven, require higher math, or even just are new, in favor of what is well settled in the consensus. It means teaching science unskeptically, as settled fact.
Consider physics, for example. It became known, in the early years of the last century, that Newton's physics breaks down at very large or very tiny scales of distance, time, and speed. New theories were cooked up to explain the discrepancies: the special and general theories of relativity, quantum theory and its offspring. By the 1930s these new theories were widely accepted, though some of the fine details remained (and some still remain!) to be worked out.
Then, in the late 1950s, along came your humble correspondent, to study physics to advanced level at a good English secondary school. What did they teach us? Newtonian mechanics! I didn't take a class in relativity theory until my third year at university, age 21. I never have formally studied quantum mechanics, though I flatter myself I understand it well enough.
My schoolmasters did the right thing. Newton's mechanics is the foundation of all physics. "But it's wrong!" you may protest. Well, so it is; but it is right enough to form that essential foundation; right enough that you cannot understand the nature of its wrongness until you have mastered it. (Along with some college-level math.) Furthermore, it is consensus science. By that I mean, if you were to poll 10,000 productive working physicists and ask them what ought to be taught in our high schools, I imagine that upwards of 9,900 of them would say: "Well, you have to get Newtonian mechanics into their heads..." No doubt you'd find the odd Velikovskian or adherent of the Hohlweltlehre, but Newtonism would be the consensus. Intelligent high-school seniors should, I think, be encouraged to read popular books about relativity and quantum mechanics. Perhaps, nowadays — I couldn't say, I am out of touch — teachers have even figured out how to make some of that higher stuff accessible to young minds, and are teaching it. If so, that's great. The foundation, though, must be consensus science, conservatively taught.
I think intelligent teenagers should also be given some acquaintance with pseudoscience, just so that they might learn to spot it when they see it. A copy of that excellent magazine Skeptical Inquirer ought to be available in any good high school library, along with books like Gardner's. I am not sure that either pseudoscience or its refutation has any place in the science classroom, though. These things properly belong in social studies, if anywhere outside the library.
And what should we teach our kids in biology classes, concerning the development of living things on earth? We should teach them Darwinism, on exactly the same arguments. There is no doubt this is consensus science. When the Intelligent Design people flourished a list of 400 scientists who were skeptical of the theory of evolution, the National Center for Science Education launched "Project Steve," in which they asked for affirmation of the contrary view, but only from scientists named Steve. (Which they estimate to be about one percent of all U.S. scientists.) The Steve-O-Meter stands at 577 as of this July 8, implying around 57,000 scientists on the orthodox side. That's consensus science. When the I.D. support roster has 57,000 names on it, drop me a line.
And Darwinism ought to be taught conservatively, without skepticism or equivocation, which will only confuse young minds. Darwinism is the essential foundation for all of modern biology and genomics, and offers a convincing explanation for all the phenomena we can observe in the life sciences. It may be that, as we get to finer levels of detail, we shall find gaps and discrepancies in Darwinism that need new theories to explain them. This is a normal thing in science, and new theories will be worked out to plug the gaps, as happened with Newtonism a hundred years ago. If this happens, nobody — no responsible scientist — will be running round tearing his hair, howling "Darwinism is a theory in crisis!" any more than the publication of Einstein's great papers a hundred years ago caused physicists to make bonfires of the Principia. The new theories, once tested and validated, will be welcomed and incorporated, as Einstein's and Planck's were. And very likely our high schools will just go on teaching Darwinism, as mine taught me Newtonism fifty years after Einstein's revolution. They will be right to do so, in my opinion, just as my schoolmasters were right.
If you are afraid that your children, being confronted with science in school, will turn into atheists and materialists, you have a wide variety of options available to you in this free nation. Most obviously, you should take your kids to church regularly, encourage them to pray, say grace before meals, and respond to those knotty questions that children sometimes ask with answers from your own faith. Or you could homeschool them, or send them to a religious school, and make sure they are not exposed to the science you fear so much.
You really shouldn't be afraid of science, though. Plenty of fine scientists have been religious. The hero of my last book, one of the greatest mathematicians of the 19th century, was a very devout man, as I took pains to make clear. The same can be said of many Darwinists. I am currently researching the life of the Victorian writer Charles Kingsley, who was a keen naturalist, an early and enthusiastic supporter of Darwin, and also a passionate Christian, who preached the last of his many fine sermons from the pulpit of Westminster Abbey. (The last words of that sermon were: "Come as thou seest best, but in whatsoever way thou comest, even so come, Lord Jesus." I suppose this man would be considered impious by the Intelligent Design merchants.)
A great deal of nonsense is being talked in this zone recently. Science is science, and ought to be taught in our public schools conservatively, from the professional consensus, as settled fact. Religion is quite a different thing. It is not entirely unconnected with science. Many scientists have believed that in their inquiries, they were engaging with God's thoughts. Faraday certainly thought so; probably Newton did, too; possibly Einstein did. This has even been a strong motivation for scientific research, and it is probable that in a world with no religion, we should have much less science than we have. Those are matters psychological and motivational, though. They don't — they can't — inform the content of scientific theories, because those theories are naturalistic by definition. Whether miracles happen in the world is a thing you must decide for yourself, based on your own faith, study, and life experiences. To admit miracles into a scientific theory, however, turns it into pseudoscience at once; and while pseudoscience can be fun, it is not science. Nor is it religion, except in the widest and loosest possible sense of that word, a sense that includes every kind of supernatural baloney that any clever crackpot can come up with — a sense I personally will not accept.
Of course the IDers are reading this article as well and have come up with some responses, including this one :
August 30, 2005
http://www.idthefuture.com/
Is Darwinism the Cornerstone of Modern Biology? Essay in the Latest Issue of The Scientist Says No
Jonathan Witt
(Corrected) John Derbyshire is at NRO explaining why only the strengths of Darwninism should be taught to high school students, never the weaknesses.
His argument rests on this statement: "Darwinism is the essential foundation for all of modern biology and genomics, and offers a convincing explanation for all the phenomena we can observe in the life sciences."
The "convincing explanation" bit is, of course, question begging. As for the claim that Darwinism is the cornerstone for all of modern biology, National Academy of Sciences member Philip S. Skell investigated the claim, and reports his results in the latest issue of The Scientist. He writes:
My own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.
This guy is plainly clueless. ID has an all-star lineup behind it and this guy obviously just hasn't kept up.
An all-star lineup, huh? Really? Would you care to elaborate? Don't try the "400 scientists" crap, because that's already been shown to be a fraud.
All-Star line-up? The last guy that tried to field that line-up found that many actually wore the uniforms of the evolutionists!
Dum Dum alert.
Can you provide a link.
Yeah! All-Star line up: The Flash, Green Lantern, Starman, Hourman, The Spectre, Sandman, Dr. Fate ...
Well, the whole point of Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, is that natural selection cannot produce biological systems that he labels as "irreducibly complex." From this he concludes such systems must have been directly designed by some intelligent agent.
Behe's book is probably the most influential one in the intelligent design movement. All the other major figures in it, Demski, Berlinski, Johnson, and Denton have all embraced Behe's argument. You can google them for yourself to find
If you want an actual quote from Behe, here's one I found on the net:
"Darwin's theory is completely barren when it comes to explaining the origin of the flagellum or any other complex biochemical system."
The source is here:
http://www.bostonreview.net/br22.1/behe.htm
I completely agree with you that God could have tweaked a mutation here or there in the process of guiding evolution, and modern science would not be able to detect it.
I would have problems with this view on theological grounds, but it is certainly cannot be ruled out (or ruled in) by science.
You are right that the intelligent design people are flying under false colors. They are, in effect, abusing the English language.
No, I think he's just proposing a way in which to reconcile religious knowledge and scientific knowledge.
I don't believe his method is philsophically or even theologically sound, but you can't say it's unscientific.
”You are proposing a system of knowledge based on the absense of evidence. “
Not at all. I don’t propose that science should back down on any evidence that is found. What I am proposing is a clear distinction between the scientific and the theological.
I think we have established that science cannot today speak to the question of whether any specific mutation must necessarily have been accidental. To make such a statement, the scientist must cross the line dividing the scientific from the theological. I have no problem with that per se (other than empirical knowledge that it is erroneous), but it seems to me that many are trying to subsume that theological opinion under the heading of science, while insisting that the opposite opinion on the same question rightfully belongs to the theological.
Now, if I say “p,” and you say “not p,” we are both expressing opinions regarding “p.” How can one of those opinions belong to the set of opinions regarding “p,” while the other belongs to the set of opinions regarding “q”? That could only be true if the factuality of “q” required “not p,” and that is not the case here. (Where “p” is the existence of God, “not p” is His non-existence, and “q” is all scientific knowledge)
“Not just evidence that hasn't yet been found, but evidence that cannot be found because the creator has hidden it so that it cannot be found.”
That too is a theological question. I don’t ask anyone to believe it on scientific grounds. However, I dispute that it is possible either to believe or disbelieve it on any grounds other than the theological.
People on these threads often complain that others are trying to inject the theological into the scientific; but the opposite is also happening. If I say “p,” that is theological; but if someone says “not p,” some insist that proposition is scientific—even though science has in no way established “not p.” From a scientific standpoint, establishing the possibility of “not p” does not necessarily rule out the possibility of “p.”
”In such a system, the rantings of a psychotic are as valid as anyone else's, because everything is equally likely or unlikely.”
Well, no, but perhaps that’s a debate for another day.
Do not multiply entities beyond necessity.
It's not going to be a debate with me. If you care to believe in something that has no evidence and is not required for a complete explanation, that's your choice.
"something that has no evidence"
Sorry to be contentious, but that is a factual error.
"Do not multiply entities beyond necessity."
Good old Occam. That's a good rule for science.
By the same token, surely science is silent on such issues rather than ruling them out without proper scientific vetting.
"I don't believe his method is philsophically or even theologically sound"
If you'd care to elaborate on that, I'd be interested in hearing your objections.
So nice of you to warn us all of your arrival to the thread. Welcome!
You've got the website. You do the research.
Theologically, the God we know from revelation and experience is one who generally prefers to work through the laws of nature and who only performs mircales on extremely rare occasions, and then generally only for the purpose of revealing himself to man. Therefore, it would seems more consistent with what we know about God that He would create man using a wholly natural process.
“Well, the whole point of Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, is that natural selection cannot produce biological systems that he labels as "irreducibly complex." From this he concludes such systems must have been directly designed by some intelligent agent.
I don’t see where that supports your original assertion. It looks to me like Behe is saying that evolution must have had a little help here and there.
I freely concede that this opinion is a theological one and not a scientific. However, so is the act of ruling out any intervention by an intelligence.
Could it have happened accidentally? I don’t think science has demonstrated that it could. Likewise, I don’t know that Behe has demonstrated scientifically that it couldn’t. Either opinion, therefore, rests on belief.
“I would have problems with this view on theological grounds, but it is certainly cannot be ruled out (or ruled in) by science.”
Perhaps we should go 1984 on the question and have huge banners everywhere reading, “Science neither proves nor disproves the existence of God.”
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.