Posted on 10/28/2005 3:29:36 PM PDT by Crackingham
A bitter debate about how to teach evolution in U.S. high schools is prompting a crisis of confidence among scientists, and some senior academics warn that science itself is under assault. In the past month, the interim president of Cornell University and the dean of the Stanford University School of Medicine have both spoken on this theme, warning in dramatic terms of the long-term consequences.
"Among the most significant forces is the rising tide of anti-science sentiment that seems to have its nucleus in Washington but which extends throughout the nation," said Stanford's Philip Pizzo in a letter posted on the school Web site on October 3.
Cornell acting President Hunter Rawlings, in his "state of the university" address last week, spoke about the challenge to science represented by "intelligent design" which holds that the theory of evolution accepted by the vast majority of scientists is fatally flawed. Rawlings said the dispute was widening political, social, religious and philosophical rifts in U.S. society. "When ideological division replaces informed exchange, dogma is the result and education suffers," he said.
Adherents of intelligent design argue that certain forms in nature are too complex to have evolved through natural selection and must have been created by a "designer," who could but does not have to be identified as God.
In the past five years, the scientific community has often seemed at odds with the Bush administration over issues as diverse as global warming, stem cell research and environmental protection. Prominent scientists have also charged the administration with politicizing science by seeking to shape data to its own needs while ignoring other research. Evangelical and fundamentalist Christians have built a powerful position within the Republican Party and no Republican, including Bush, can afford to ignore their views. This was dramatically illustrated in the case of Terri Schiavo earlier this year, in which Republicans in Congress passed a law to keep a woman in a persistent vegetative state alive against her husband's wishes, and Bush himself spoke out in favor of "the culture of life."
The issue of whether intelligent design should be taught, or at least mentioned, in high school biology classes is being played out in a Pennsylvania court room and in numerous school districts across the country. The school board of Dover, Pennsylvania, is being sued by parents backed by the American Civil Liberties Union after it ordered schools to read students a short statement in biology classes informing them that the theory of evolution is not established fact and that gaps exist in it. The statement mentioned intelligent design as an alternative theory and recommended students to read a book that explained the theory further.
Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller believes the rhetoric of the anti-evolution movement has had the effect of driving a wedge between a large proportion of the population who follow fundamentalist Christianity and science.
"It is alienating young people from science. It basically tells them that the scientific community is not to be trusted and you would have to abandon your principles of faith to become a scientist, which is not at all true," he said.
On the other side, conservative scholar Michael Novak of the American Enterprise Institute, believes the only way to heal the rift between science and religion is to allow the teaching of intelligent design.
"To have antagonism between science and religion is crazy," he said at a forum on the issue last week.
The atom bomb was technology, not science. Science was Meitner's experiments with fission.
What was your major? In many humanities classes, A stands for 'attendance'.
I wouldn't say creationists are universally stupid. Some can be quite intelligent but ignorant or deluded.
All I can say is 12 years in a Catholic school gave me a far better education in science than the majority of my competitors for positions in the engineering schools at the universities that I applied to. I'm only average smart, but those evil Catholics did a fantastic job in college preparation. And, yes, one of my classes every day was religion.
Would you mind if I asked, in what subject are you a professor?
Yes, science can report observations and patterns of observations. But, science can't explain "why" or even as much as Genesis 1:1 explains.
The problem with "Science" - what many in the US have been hostile to for more than a hundred years is the representation of science as omnipotent and omniscient. And of course "science" is neither. *Scientists* most certainly are neither.
As long as those who work in science and would teach the patterns they find in science anthropomorphize "Science" as all knowing, all powerful and not to be questioned- or when legitimate seekers of pattern allow the media to do so, as in this article - then no one should be surprised that there is "hostility."
Why dosn't scientific evidence seem to be important to these people and the media when the argument turns to homosexuality and sexual orientation?
They love to play both sides of the science argument as long as it suits their leftist/elite perspective.
"The problem with "Science" - what many in the US have been hostile to for more than a hundred years is the representation of science as omnipotent and omniscient. And of course "science" is neither. *Scientists* most certainly are neither."
Part of the problems is that they generally are not real, serious scientists with good educations saying those things... That's why I asked Rightwingprofessor about his credentials - he is making all encompassing statements about physics that are hostile (illogically so) to the existence of something unknown.
I've had the opportunity to discuss this topic in person with numerous physicists at Cal Tech, JPL , MIT, Georgia Tech and GTRI and I've never heard a reputable physicist claim that they have the universe all figured out and that God is excluded and the universe is deterministic. I've been asked many times how I reconcile my beliefs as a Christian with my education as a physicist and once I've explained I've never had a hostile reaction the way I am getting on this board.
It's almost as if non-scientists (and no doubt a few close minded scientists that I just have not met) are using science not for science's sake but to advance their attacks on other's beliefs.
That is every bit as wrong as the people who want to mandate teaching ID in high school but it is not, in my experience representative of actual scientists.
************
Evidently arrogance is idicative of a crisis of confidence.
"Evidently arrogance is idicative of a crisis of confidence"
Or that statement could be wrong.
I've never met a real scientist who is concerned about the present state of science but I've met hundreds who are concerned about the future of science education.
Scientists are deeply concerned about the future of science education in the U.S., but not science education in general. It seems pretty obvious that the U.S. will not be a leader in science in the next 20 years.
"Scientists are deeply concerned about the future of science education in the U.S., but not science education in general. It seems pretty obvious that the U.S. will not be a leader in science in the next 20 years."
Yes, well they said that 20 years ago too. Science is tied to the economy, medicine and defense so we have allies.
They said it forty years ago as well. But things have changed.
A) Public education is falling apart and under attack.
B) Companies have cut back on R&D and basic research of the type that used to be done by Bell Labs.
C) There is the general idea in the air that science is in conflict with religion.
D)And the most controversial reason. It doesn't matter whether ID is right, wrong or indifferent. The debate is fairly meaningless. However, the debate serves to taint not only American scientists, but also school districts. Do you think those schools that teach ID will be able to attract quality science teachers? Don't you think that top universities who see good performing students apply from those schools will be prejudiced against them, just a little?
I promise you -- the ID debate and denigration of scientists is not going on in China, India or any of the other countries where science is increasingly prized. They send their top students to our top universities where they apply their noses to the grindstone and then return to work for companies in those countries.
There are forces working the other way too...
1. Lots of the brilliant overseas science students like it here and stay.
2. Venture capital is the new R&D
3. Biotech has become enourmously profitable
4. Darpa is a major force for research
5. The universties are very strong... just one floor of the artificial intelligence lab at MIT has produced more tech comanies than many entire countries.
Not that you don't have a point .. I remember a conference in Orlando 20 years ago when I went with a guy from MIT when we were working on a proposal for less than $100,000 for laying biological components on silicone - we met our Japanese counterpart - he $3 million in funding and a dedicated lab.
I asked one simple question (have you tried a more electronegative ion) in his presentation and three guys jumped up with cameras and took my picture and then two of them left the room. We skipped the rest of the conference, went to Disney World and went back home and found something else to work on.
Applied Sciences. I enjoyed the humanities, art, music, communications etc, but my favorite subjects were the mathmatics, physics, electronics and biological sciences.
Applied sciences is a major?
***The atom bomb was technology, not science. Science was Meitner's experiments with fission.***
So does God have a place in "technology"?
I'm an atheist. You're asking about something I consider mythical.
Physical chemistry.
***I'm an atheist. You're asking about something I consider mythical.***
You've tried to make the point that science is seperate from technology - and that ethical questions (in the cases addressed) don't apply to the "science" side. Is science above being being judged by ethical standards?
(An aside: I don't believe you are really an athiest - you're just agnostic and don't know it.)
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.