Posted on 06/20/2007 2:32:45 AM PDT by balch3
This opinion piece by David K. DeWolf ran in the Boston Globe, yesterday.
IT'S THE QUESTION that won't go away. Twice during the Republican presidential debates and once at a forum for Democratic candidates, candidates were asked about evolution. For example, in the California debate all the candidates were asked to respond to the question of whether they believed in evolution. In the New Hampshire debate, follow-up questions were asked of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and Kansas Senator Sam Brownback. At the Sojourners Forum debate, John Edwards was asked, "Do you believe in evolution or do you believe in creationism?"
As several commentators have pointed out, these are trick questions, because "evolution" was never defined. Do I believe that the Corvette has evolved over the years? Yes, I do. Do I think that it evolved by random mutation and natural selection? No, I don't.
At the New Hampshire debate, Wolf Blitzer asked Arizona Senator John McCain a follow-up question: "Do you believe creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the nation's schools?" This too is a trick question, because no serious advocate wants to teach "creationism." However, there is increasing skepticism among thoughtful scientists of a central claim of neo-Darwinism, namely that complex living systems can be generated from mindless processes like random mutation and natural selection. Thus, the question that Wolf Blitzer should have asked would be along these lines: "Do you think that the topic of Darwinian evolution should be taught objectively in our public schools, with evidence for and against the theory?"
Some candidates would undoubtedly answer "No," asserting that there "is no debate" over evolution and that teaching "both sides" of a non controversy does a disservice to students. But we have heard that rhetoric elsewhere. For example, Al Gore has famously said that the debate is over regarding global warming. Even assuming that human beings cause global warming, scientists vigorously debate how significant the human contribution is and how beneficial remedial measures would be. "The debate is over" really means, "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with the facts."
You might think that a public high school is a poor venue for controversies in science. But even in higher education political and ideological agendas are threatening academic freedom. For example, Guillermo Gonzalez, a talented astronomer at Iowa State University, was recently denied tenure. Gonzalez has published 68 scientific papers, more than three times the number normally expected for tenure in his department. His college textbook on astronomy was published by Cambridge University Press. His work has been featured in top scientific journals, including a cover story in Scientific American.
But in 2004 Gonzalez co authored a book, "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery," which made the case for attributing the life-sustaining features of our planet to something other than random chance. This was too much for some colleagues at ISU. A petition was circulated by a religious studies professor and signed by 120 colleagues, affirming their rejection of "all attempts to represent intelligent design as a scientific endeavor."
Some may have the illusion that science is devoid of politics. But whether we debate the efficacy of a pharmaceutical drug, the risks of electromagnetic radiation, or the potential benefit of embryonic stem cells, financial and ideological agendas are not easily set aside. As bad as political correctness may be in the humanities and social sciences, we should be particularly alarmed by a threat to the right to dissent from the "mainstream" when it comes to scientific knowledge, often a critical component of our public policy.
Those with the courage to challenge reigning orthodoxies ought to be able to follow the scientific evidence where it leads. Some may study the scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution and conclude that there is no God. Some may study the evidence for intelligent design and conclude that atheism is irrational. Some may reach the conclusion that Darwinian evolution and religious faith are perfectly compatible. The question of how best to explain the appearance of design in the universe should be fair game; scientists, teachers, and students should have the right to reach the answer that each finds most satisfying.
At the next presidential debate, I'd like to hear the following question: "Do you think public school students should be permitted to hear both sides of the debate about Darwinian evolution?" American voters want to know their answers.
David K. DeWolf is a professor of law at Gonzaga Law School in Spokane, Wash., and a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle .
Since “both sides” means the scientific side and the religious side, only one gets to be taught in science classes and the other may be taught in elective religion classes.
I would agree with the above.
I think that's false.
One side says -- look at this neat evidence! This evidence makes us think that random mutation and natural selection is responsible for speciation!
The other side says -- look at the complexity! The complexity and inter-relatedness of natural systems makes us think that random mutation can't be responsible!
Debate the differences. That's science. Swallowing one half of the story -- that's religion!
No there isn't.
I teach this stuff. I have no problem understanding acquired complexity. Perhaps a few science courses (undiluted) would help you.
How do you feel about quantum mechanics? Should physics courses present the “it looks compex to laymen so let’s just say goddidit” argument?
Should each science class give equal time to all alternative theories with a popular or religous following? Most? Some?
BTW, mutations aren’t truly random.
Cogent post and very well stated.
Balch3: If there isn’t there should be, right? Is the evidence that supportive in your opinion? If so, I have not yet seen it. I know they have conjured a few things up in the lab, but I have seen no evidence for any labs being present on a young earth.
I think science classes have their “popular followings” already, that is, unless of course you consider evolutionary theory, unpopular? I could alternatively posit the question, “Are we to just say chance over time did it, everytime we run into something complex?”
Both sides are religious. One worships blind chance.
Duplicate, or your observations are no more scientific than Margaret Mead’s or Noam Chomsky’s.
Postulates, hypotheses and theories should not be taught as given fact. Just because “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” sounds neat doesn’t mean it is necessarily true.
I’m not sayin’, I’m just sayin’.
Evolution has been taught in public schools for decades. It's mostly presented as established truth. And yet, some 60% of the public does not believe in it. Imagine what that percentage would be if part of the teaching were to explore the views of scientists who have don't accept Evolution. There's quite a bit that can be said against it, and although you may not find this side of the argument compelling, can you imagine the outcome if schools truly presented both sides of the debate? The number of Americans who accept Evolution would likely be smaller, don't you think?
Perhaps that disturbs you. The folks who oppose Evolution are sometimes derisively compared to Flat Earthers. Let's look at that as one "alternative theory":
What if, for decades, all students studied Geography and that a central teaching of Geography was that the Earth was flat. Now, there is another side of the argument, and that side would also be taught. The teacher would show film from astronauts in space orbiting the Earth. Students might talk to people from Australia ("No, we're not standing on our head.") and reports could be done on traveling around the world via major airlines.
After decades of presenting both sides of this Flat Earth controversy -- how many Americans would believe that the earth was actually flat? I'd expect less than 5%.
So (my opinion): if we teach both sides of Evolution, the percentage of people who accept Evolution will go down. If we teach both side of Flat Earth Theory the percentage of Flat Earthers will go down.
Someone's pet theory is a lot like the Flat Earth theory. And it ain't mine.
My point: teaching both sides of alternate theories is only frightening to the people who want their theory accepted as a matter of faith but who lack the means to make a truly compelling case for their side.
Wrong.
On two counts. Blind chance is not how life form evolve. Many scientists, perhaps most in this country, are some form of Christian.
Try re-reading my post 6. You seem to have missed the point. Or are you possibly presenting strawman arguments knowingly?
Nope.
You can, of course, posit any questions you like, but yours are not relevant to the content of science classes.
Science in science classes, other things elsewhere.
Why? Simply because we want students to know what scientists think on a given scientific subject.
Your basic point, as I understood it, seemed to be that the content of science classes should not be determined by what "most people" seem to think is right.
My point is that in areas where there is controversy (and the Evo debate has controversy, in case you missed it) then teaching both sides would seem to be an appropriate way to present the material.
My further point is that the side that doesn't want both sides presented (that's the Evo side) would seem to be fearful that their side will be unable to mount a case which is more compelling that their competition (that's the anti-Evo side).
I think the Evolutionists want their beliefs taken on faith. I do think Evolution has become a religion.
Anyone with any sense sees life forms adapt. Many in the scientific communitycarry this back to primordial soup coalescing over millions of years and the one-celled organisms eventually evolving into Man.
My point is that scientists determine what is in science classes.
That way students learn what current scientific thinking is in the field.
This is done in every branch of science, even geology which has much in it that could disturb those who want envery branch of science to match their personal understanding of the Bible.
I'll make a bold prediction: more bacteria will become resistant to antibiotics and the flu next year will have mutated from the flu this year making flu shots given this year useless. But that would show that organisms mutate their genes so that their offspring will survive and multiply.
To some extent, resistant bacteria already exist. Bacteria develop in response to stimuli, and incomplete dosage of antibiotics seems to let resistant bugs develop more resistance. Are viruses really a;ive?
Since when is bacteria a virus?
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.