WorldWatch - Creation and Evolution in the Schools

World Watch and The Rhinoceros Times ^ | January 8, 2006 | Orson Scott Card

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I'm not talking about relativistic physics or germ theory. I'm talking about science in general, and a particular statement many of its adherents agree to, namely that, "God is beyond the purview of science." "

Almost ALL scientists adhere to that statement, except for a few eccentrics and cranks. So, if you are going to criticize evolution for not mentioning God, you must criticize ALL science for not mentioning God.

"This is an inherently atheistic point of view."

No, it most definitely is not. Atheism is the conviction that God doesn't exist. YOU don't get to redefine the English language to fit your religion. Atheism is not the position of science. The position of science about God is, "Ask a theologian." You are condemning science for not being theology. You desperately want your theological beliefs to have the imprimatur of science without having to have any of the rigor of science.

"But it is not the federal government's prerogative to establish and espouse only such a point of view."

Science textbooks espouse NO POINT OF VIEW about the existence of God. It is non-Theistic.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Agnosticism does not acknowledge only two possibilities. Agnosticism recognizes that there are many possibilities, including, for example, the Hindu pantheon, Roman and Greek gods, etc., in addition to the Abrahamic God.

The argument nevertheless boils down to essentially two possibilities: material and non-material causes, or perhaps impersonal and personal causes. "Atheistic" carries pejorative baggage, to be sure, but that is a latent effect not inherent in the definition. Whatever. Neither the federal government in general nor public schools in particular have the prerogative of excluding theistic considerations, let alone non-material or personal causes, from scientific contexts. The are not empowered to establish and support atheistic principles by default.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Atheism is the conviction that God doesn't exist.

Yes it is. And when applied to those who undertake science with the understanding that God is beyond its purview, it causes science to be atheistic. In such cases God does not exist in the eyes of science.

Maybe you think science and theology need to be sealed up in little hermetic bags, and never the twain shall meet. But you have no scientific basis for holding such an opinion, just as you have no scientific basis for excluding God from the purview of science.

[mlc9852]

I wouldn't vote for anyone who said evolution shouldn't be taught, only ID or whatever you wish to call it. I want both taught. And I agree that politicians would be better off staying out of it. However, Jeb Bush said he thinks both should be taught and I'm very glad he said it. Of course, others disagree. But I'm not sure it actually lost him any votes (if he runs for an office again)and I haven't heard an outcry from Floridians to have him tossed out of office. He took much more heat during the Schiavo case. I just don't think that people would refuse to vote for someone because they think it's okay to teach both.

[WildHorseCrash]

"Atheistic" carries pejorative baggage, to be sure, but that is a latent effect not inherent in the definition.

It isn't a matter of semantics. Atheism says "there is no god." It makes an assertive statement.

Non-theism (or secularism, to use a different and perhaps more accurate term) says it doesn't concern itself with gods or religion. That's the key distinction. "Having nothing to do with a god" isn't atheism or even agnosticism. It's secularism.

Neither the federal government in general nor public schools in particular have the prerogative of excluding theistic considerations, let alone non-material or personal causes, from scientific contexts. The are not empowered to establish and support atheistic principles by default.

They are REQUIRED, both Constitutionally and by case law, to support secularism when it comes to science. Secularism doesn't become atheism because you don't like it.

[WildHorseCrash]

Yes it is. And when applied to those who undertake science with the understanding that God is beyond its purview, it causes science to be atheistic.

No, it causes it to be secular.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Stating and adhereing to the principle that "God is beyond the purview of science" is not "having nothing to do with a god." It is saying something definite and particular about God and where he does not belong.

[CobaltBlue]

"Snow Crash" is just plain fun, especially if you love language, and are interested in mythology.

[narby]

I want both taught.

No, you probably don't. It was tried at a college, where they taught from the famous "Pandas" ID book, then proceeded to debunk it entirely and present evolution. A control group of students were just taught the standard evolution course.

The result was that where "both" were taught, the students had rejected ID (would they now reject their faith too?). The group taught evolution had a lower number who believed it after the course was through, no doubt because they had heard about this controversy and just thought they were being presented junk.

Now if "both" were taught, just how do you think many science professors would teach it? You know good and well many would not leave the conclusion to the students, but would present ID merely in order to debunk it. And as the test shows, that tactic works well.

Jeb Bush said he thinks both should be taught and I'm very glad he said it. Of course, others disagree. But I'm not sure it actually lost him any votes

Jeb backed away from the subject almost immediately. Someone must have clued him in.

People can argue about the Schivo case pro and con forever. There really isn't a "correct" answer, because it just comes down to how one feels. So it's not likely to cost Jeb many votes, except for those looking for reasons to vote against him anyway.

But evolution is different. There are many people, even many Christians, who think that people who don't believe evolution also think the earth was created in 7 days, and therefore they are as dumb as bricks. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant. I'm just telling you that a large number of people, many of them conservatives right here on FR, actually believe that anyone against evolution is dumb as a brick, and they will refuse to vote for them for that reason alone.

I don't necessarily think such people are "dumb" per se, except that they're dumb politically for talking about creationism, and that's just as good a reason to vote against them as otherwise. If they're dumb enough to make that kind of political mistake, then they'll make more.

[Condorman]

For those interested in alternate histories, Card's Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus makes for some fascinating reading.

[CobaltBlue]

I am surprised that nobody's yet mentioned Willam Gibson. The best living science fiction writer, in my opinion. "Neuromancer" is the best science fiction book I've read in the past twenty or thirty years.
http://www.williamgibsonbooks.com/books/books.asp

Unfortunately it seems like each successive book isn't quite as good as the last one, but I still think he's superior to the old guys - Asimov, Heinlein, etc.

And let us not forget Phillip K. Dick! At least before he finally lost his mind completely, say, pre-Valis.
http://www.philipkdick.com/

[mlc9852]

You bring up a lot of good points. Personally, I just wish the whole issue would go away - lol. But it won't any time soon.

Have a good evening.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"And when applied to those who undertake science with the understanding that God is beyond its purview, it causes science to be atheistic."

No, saying you are unable to examine something is not saying that thing doesn't exist. Before the microscope was invented, it was not possible to explore and claims about tiny organisms too small to be seen with the naked eye. In 1200 AD, viruses were outside the purview of science. Does that mean they didn't exist? No. Just that anybody who speculated about organisms that small would not be able to make scientific claims about said organisms.

The same goes with God right now. There is no God-o-meter to study God. The fact that no scientific theory mentions God in it's postulates does not mean that they never will or that science is atheistic. It is simply not CAPABLE of making any claims about God. You keep saying it is, but never giving any indication how one would study God scientifically. The balls in your court, yet you keep faulting.

" Maybe you think science and theology need to be sealed up in little hermetic bags, and never the twain shall meet."

It's up to you to show HOW they could meet. You refuse.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"It is saying something definite and particular about God and where he does not belong."

No, it is saying EXACTLY the opposite. It is saying NOTHING about the existence of God.

[Condorman]

I am surprised that nobody's yet mentioned Willam Gibson. The best living science fiction writer, in my opinion.

Well, since Jack L. Chalker died last year the competition for "Best Living SF Writer" IS a little easier.

Hmm... You don't suppose Gibson had a hand in that...

SET EXTREMEPARANOIAMODE=OFF

[Fester Chugabrew]

No, saying you are unable to examine something is not saying that thing doesn't exist.

I never said it is. It is simply atheism excercised and espoused within the confines of science. Government has no business establishing and supporting that kind of exercise to exclusion of those who believe God may fall within the purview of science, either directly or indirectly.

[CobaltBlue]

" Maybe you think science and theology need to be sealed up in little hermetic bags, and never the twain shall meet."

It's up to you to show HOW they could meet. You refuse.

I've experienced how it's done in Catholic school, and read about how it's done in Jewish schools.

In both cases, evolution is taught, but the teachers mention that God is somehow involved mysteriously in the process as the Creator, and then stop talking about God and talk about the process. After all, there's really not much that humans can comprehend about how God works!

[Fester Chugabrew]

It is saying NOTHING about the existence of God.

The existence of God is not the issue. The manner and degree to whoch God may or may not be introduced in a scientific context is the issue. Stating that "God is beyond the purview of science" is definitively atheistic. It specifically names "God" as the object of exclusion. How can science exclude something it claims to be "silent" about?

[CobaltBlue]

So, does it bother you that God isn't mentioned in chemistry class, either? How about physics?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I never said it is."

You said exactly this. We have been saying over and over that science is unable to examine if God exists, and you are saying science is saying therefore that God doesn't exist (the definition of atheism).

"It is simply atheism excercised and espoused within the confines of science."

See, you are doing it again. Atheism is ONLY the conviction that something does not exist. Science doesn't say this. How can the position of science be atheism when it doesn't say that God doesn't exist?

"Government has no business establishing and supporting that kind of exercise to exclusion of those who believe God may fall within the purview of science, either directly or indirectly."

The government has no business pushing theological claims in a science classroom when these claims are not capable of scientific examination.