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.
More to the point, waht is the practical value of knowing how organiuc matter emerged from iinorganic matter if the original conditions are so different from what we know how? Do we hope to "seed" Venus" or something? Like "Genesis" in that "Star Trek" movie?
It appears Ol' Sparky has once again waddled out from under the jacked up pickup in the frontyard to lift his leg on the live oak. Have no fear after a few barks and yowls and scratches he'll slink back under the pickup.
Evolution is not a unifying theory. It has a lot of explanatory power, but not that much. Even physics has no come up with such a theory.
Not in the article.
Behe, Dembski and Denton all agree that evolution is a fact. They are disagreeing about the mechanism. Even in their scheme, natural selection is a major and undeniable component. There really aren't any well known scientists who doubt common descent.
Since you apparently own the definition of scientist, you must be right. For my edification, what is the definition of "well known scientist".
I could make the same argument that most well known branches of science were founded by creationists.
Have you ever wondered why Darwin's grandfather imagined, and Charlie wrote about that pesky "theory" anyway?
The idea of evolution was centuries old when Charles Darwin wrote about it. It was obvious from the geologic record.
What Darwin noticed was the relationship between variation, overproduction of offspring, and selection.
That is a very big claim. Just because the conditions here are favorable for our biosphere and our existence, does not imply that those conditions were pre-ordained or exclusively present here. Nor does it mean that these same conditions cannot exist elsewhere. It's like assuming the Earth is the center of the universe because we are God's creation and deserved a special place. It's the anthromorphic (sp?) principle. For us to exist we need these conditions, but these conditions were here before we were here. We developed from these conditions, not the idea that these conditions are here because of us. on the other hand, it is marvelous.
Apologies for implying this TEO (Theory of Evolution) is a subsitute for the elusive TOE (Theory of Everything) in physics. I was indicating that it does unify many aspects of biology, much in the same way quantum mechanics underlies chemistry.
If abiogensis, and hence macro-Evolution are true, there is no God. No God, no absolutes, no truth, no judgement to come.
BUT, if God created, then we better figure out who he is, what he wants, and what his rules are, and if he will judge us.
Musolini, Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler were all strong evolutionists. Charlie Darwin was a strong Racist. Abiogenesis macro-Evolutionary thought will continue to bring many evils upon the world, e.g. cloning for parts, genocide, abortion on demand, euthenasia, homosexualty, polygamy, bestiality, etc.
There is plenty of evidence against slow, gradual rise of new genus from other genus, e.g. no fossil evidence - there should be TON's!. But the philosophical underpinnings are the result of the world view.
You didn't make any arguments. Just meaningless speculations.
Erm, no he wasn't. Stalin's favoured scientist Lysenko was so ideologically opposed to evolution by natural selection that all Soviet biologists had to follow his baloney theories, utterly destroying Russian biology for a whole generation. Oops!
Really? How?
How did all of those things get buried without being eaten or decaying, anyway? Pretty cool that a 10 foot wide dino could get buried over thousands of years and still have skin attached!
It is written, have you not read 2 Peter 3:5 "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished."
I think it is clear Derbyshire does not understand ID, making the article "classic" in the laughable sense.
Enlighten me as to Stalin's and Lysenko's belief on origins. Both were evolutionists, Lysenko just had no clue regarding genetics.
Your posts are interesting.... and tho I'm not well-versed in this kind of debate... I have a question that I've never had answered satisfactorily by evolutionists. Doesn't present-time observations tell us that life forms "degenerate" or become extinct... without intelligent intervention?
Millions, actually.
I'm aware of only one claim of flexible tissue being preserved in a dino fossil, and no claim at all of any cells or DNA being found.
Fossilization varies in its ability to preserve. Amber is good, but there may be other instances where tissue has been preserved. It's pretty rare.
Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. Just ask any trial attorney.
I was referring to skin imprints, of which there are many examples. The original question, even if it is only bones preserved, is how could so many be preserved, especially sea life on mountain tops?
I'm done.
Evidence can be tested and studied. But thanks for admitting (in an indirect fashion) that creationism has no evidence to support it.
bump to peruse later
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.