The Christian Science Monitor wades into the evolution v. creation debate with a story focused on the classroom. High school science teachers are finding it more difficult to teach evolution without their students asking questions. This is a crisis according to many science teachers and teacher associations across the country. My question is – when did questions become unscientific?
Isn’t that what science is all about – questioning ideas, researching presuppositions, all in an attempt to reach truth, regardless of where that truth may lie. Many science teachers say their student’s questions are "wasting time" and "charging the atmosphere of a controversial issue." The results are "an uncomfortable atmosphere" and are "disheartening" to teachers. What everyone should do is to research and seek after the truth. Too often both sides dismiss the other side from the start. Pro-evolutionist will ignore any and all arguments from a creationist and dimiss them as relgious and unscientific. Creationist may ignore any evolution ideas because they think "science is the devil." Both sides are quick to spout off the lastest thing they have been told by those who agree with them, without taking any time to investigate the claims. Everyone needs to realize that no one has all the answers in this debate. if someone tells you they know how everything happened they are lying. It is impossible for us to know for certain everything that happened at the beginning of the universe and life on this planet. We can use all the evidence we have and come up with the best possible quess. Again both sides need to realize some things. Evolutionists must understand that close to half of America accepts and believes some form of creationism and that only 28% accept evolution. Evolutionists must also understand that there is legitimate scientific study going on in the field of intelligent design. In fact, if you took all the scientists who believed in intelligent design you would remove most of history’s most renowed scientists. Creationists must understand that just because they have a few scientists and an institute or two does not mean that creationism is on par with evolution in the scientific community yet. It took many years for Darwinian evolution to become the dominant theory. It cannot and will not be replaced in five years because you want it to be. And to the anti-science creationists out there, if the Bible is true and God is Truth, then He has nothing to worry about from science. Again, many of the founders of the different branches of sciences were Christians. They wanted to discover more about their Creator through His creation. But debate is good and healthy, what causes doubt in someone’s mind is when debate is not allowed. If something is true then it can withstand discussion of its merit. That is why both creationist and evolutionist should not be afraid of questions. If we are all after the same thing – Truth – then lets have the questions and may the right ideas win.
Great! I'm gonna be busy printing out sheets of 10 Questions Your Priest/Pastor/Minister Can't Answer! and give them to kids to talk about in church, for isn't religion, too, seeking?
I;m kidding, of course. But that's the nature of this "debate" – grown up ideologues are using real kids as their proxies.
"Evolutionists must also understand that there is legitimate scientific study going on in the field of intelligent design. "
No. There isn't. Interesting philosophical and legal ponderings, perhaps. Legitimate quasiscientific, pseudoscientific, or other not-really-scientific-study, perhaps, but not legitimate scientific study. This isn't really debatable. If you wish to fool yourself and/or your readers, ok, but again, No. There isn't. Talk to a real scientist.
"In fact, if you took all the scientists who believed in intelligent design you would remove most of history's most renowed scientists."
Hahahahaha!
The joke is, of course, that these "most renowned scientists" (as we would quickly realize if you gave any names) all lived before (or just when) the theory of evolution was developed. Haha! So clever! (Also, how many of them were biologists?)
"Creationists must understand that just because they have a few scientists and an institute or two does not mean that creationism is on par with evolution in the scientific community yet. "
No, it's not. It would need to be actual science first. Despite your reasonable words, the implication is that it has a hope of being on a par with evolution. C'mon, the scientific community thinks creationists are fools. I worry your side is going to give itself a bad case of false selF-esteem and get its feelings all hurt when 95% (99+ in relevent fields) of the scientific community doesn't even bother to laugh at it . . .
Best guess given the evidence *is* what evolution is.
But your words to the antiscience folks are very wise
Therein lies the problem Dan. When I say something you agree with that is wise, but when I say something you disagree with I am at best uninformed.
You basically place creationist scientists in an unending circle. What they are doing is not science because it is creation and they are not "real scientists" because they don't believe in evolution. The only way for them to actually be doing real science in your eyes is for them to agree with you. Now is that science?
Actually many creation scientist are doing real science, as real as any evolution science. Both of them are involved in major guess work, since we cannot know for sure all of the variables at the beginning. Neither can be placed in true hard science, since they would have to be testing something that is repeatable in the lab and again since we don't know the conditions of the beginning it is impossible to escape the guesswork involved.
Most creationist don't have visions of grander, they have already been relegated to the realm of "quasiscientific" and "pseudoscientific" science by their peers. The fact that 99% of the scientific community "doesn't even bother to laugh at" intelligent design is part of the problem. Darwinian evolution is so dogmatic that it is almost on par with Jesus and Christianity. Scientists are not allowed to touch that for fear of their job. That is not a healthy situation for science.
Again, both sides should be open to debate, discussion and any attempt to discover the truth.
As to your 10 questions to ask your pastor, print and ask away! ;)
"When I say something you agree with that is wise, but when I say something you disagree with I am at best uninformed."
Huh. Well, I'm flattered, but I wouldn't go that far. How about this: When you say reasonable things, that is wise, but when you say objectively false or extremely dubious things you are uninformed.
Look, creation science isn't science, not because they don't agree with *me*, but because *it isn't science!* Just like astrology.
There *are* creationscientists doing real science, yes, However, this is in fields like chemistry or engineering, not evolutionary biology, geology, etc.
"The fact that 99% of the scientific community "doesn't even bother to laugh at" intelligent design is part of the problem."
Why? Open mind = good. Brains falling out = not good.
The fact that the scientific community doesn't bother to laugh at astrology isn't a problem, or a sign of dogmatism – it's a sign that they've moved on. Same thing.
Evolution is a thriving, productive part of science. If it starts to shrivel up, then maybe people will reconsider. There doesn't seem to any specific reason to hold your breath at this point.
"Scientists are not allowed to touch that for fear of their job"
Just like those poor astronomers, quivering with fear and hope at the thought of daring to discuss cusps and romantic compatability . . .
"we cannot know for sure all of the variables at the beginning"
so? what does this have to do with anything? Evolution is about what life did *after* it popped up.
"Again, both sides should be open to debate, discussion and any attempt to discover the truth."
We HAD this debate a number of decades ago. The creationists lost. And they have continued to lose – indeed, where the good ol' scientific revolution model would have difficulties and contradictions and etc. piling up, evolution has just been doing better and better. Look – when I was would cut school in my mispent youth and go to the pizza place to play Street Fighter 2 [arcade game], my utter lack of skill and repeated, rapid losses would often lead to me to insist that the computer was "cheating." I understand these sorts of impulses. They don't get you anywhere, though!
"As to your 10 questions to ask your pastor, print and ask away! ;)"
Why? That would be mean – I'm sure they have better things to do than explain to small children the obscure answers to an assortment of irrelevent old chestnuts.
And I certainly would never demand that my local religious institutions be required to discuss evidence against religion (whatever you might include), read a statement about how religion is only a happy story, or teach evolution (if either I or the congregation imagined it to be in conflict with their religious teachings. Yet that is, in essence, what creationists are trying to do (and why I'm so rude – usually I'm extremely polite, but this nonsense is getting out of hand). Given that you realize there is no real conflict, no reason to fear modern science, I don't understand why you are advocating even some sort of "shape up, both of you!" silliness.
" Evolutionists must understand that close to half of America accepts and believes some form of creationism and that only 28% accept evolution."
Many "evolutionists" (whatever that might mean – biologists? scientists? pro-science laypeople?) probably have seen these sorts of poll results. What are they supposed to get from them, besides that creationist pressure has gutted science education on the K-12 level?
Look, creation science isn't science, not because they don't agree with *me*, but because *it isn't science!* Just like astrology.
I think that we have two undefined terms here – what is "science" and what is "creation science." But I think your a priori conlusion that any science whose underlying assumption is special creation is not able to perform real science belays our first difference – you assume that this world view excludes someone from obeying the "rules of science" in their experimental pursuits. That is not so – not any more than your deist or naturalistic or atheistic world view.
This article a the ARN has an interesting discussion about how we demarcate what is science and what is not – interestingly, using naturalism as your foundational assumption has become a mainstay of science, even though this philosophy may not be the only valid foundation of assumptions.
Surely invoking God as an answer for the yet to be discovered is not science – it is often superstition. However, a biblical world view has led to some of the greatest scientific discoveries in history – those seeking to understand the order (read "design") in the universe, with a basic assumption that order exists due to design, or at least definable laws that exist, for whatever reason (nature of reality).
There are some organizations seeking to do and publish science based on creationist assumptions:
The Creation Research Society – these guys publish what appears to be a peer-reviewed journal, depending on what you call "peers." However, many (but not all) of these articles contain original data and research.
ISCID – "provides a forum for formulating, testing, and disseminating research on complex systems through critique, peer review, and publication. " That sounds close to science ;)
Admittedly, this is not very many. But there are reasons for this:
(1) Federal grants for creation or design-oriented research are hard to get due to the overwhelming bias of the current scientific establishment. That means that all research, unless is slips by unnoticed, or is sufficiently benign in it's approach (i.e. doesn't need evolutionary or creationist assumptions to be done), must be privately funded.
(2) Creationist or design-oriented research is often not accepted to primary peer-review journals, not based on the science, but the underlying worldview that scientists reject.
(3) There are a growing number of established scientists who have chosen to fight this fight outside of the peer-reviewed journal world by writing books instead. But they have published good non-creation research in peer-review journals in establishing their careers. Here's one example.
And here's a funny – Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box, works in the Bio Dept. at Lehigh University, and his speciality? Evolution of protein structure.
There *are* creation scientists doing real science….However, this is in fields like chemistry or engineering, not evolutionary biology, geology, etc.
Well of course, they are not doing *evolutionary* biology, why would they pursue something they think never happened? I am not that familiar w/ geology, but I am sure they must be looking into it. CRSQ has some articles, but I think they are secondary reviews of primary data, not primary themselves (but they might be). So at very least, Creation scientists are discussing the data (since that's most of what geology is – discovery and discussion, not making up experiments, but I may be wrong).
"we cannot know for sure all of the variables at the beginning"
so? what does this have to do with anything? Evolution is about what life did *after* it popped up.
Evolution is still based on abiogenesis, an idea that has never been proven. But it must be fact if the majority believe in it ;) Design people could (and do) make a similar argument. "We're not saying who or what the designer is, we're just saying that, we posit that all things appeared fully formed, and that since then, we observe things drifting and changing (degrading) in certain ways."
So evolution starts with chaos and leads to order, while creationism starts with order and leads toward chaos (obeying the rule of entropy). I've heard all the "open system, closed system" stuff about entropy and living systems, so we don't need to go into it. I'm just saying that we both make assumptions about the starting point, but what science can do is try to describe what has happened since then. Both evolution and creationism attempt to do so, although both also try to prove their foundational assumptions about origins and the starting point.
We HAD this debate a number of decades ago. The creationists lost.
I understand your point, but sometimes debates reopen beacause of new evidence, or because the original decision was skewed by politics of power rather than facts. That is the case here, just as it is in many other cases, such as the Dred Scott case (which "won" the argument that blacks could not become US Citizens), the argument was not over because it defied the truth (of equality).
BTW, this is why roe v. wade will be overturned – the unborn, after a certain point in pregnancy, have human rights just like blacks – the former are not "non-people" up until they take their first breath – that defies logic, but I explain that elsewhere.
Hey Aaron, congratulations on the new family member. And hey, I know you didn't ask me for it, but here's your list of questions anyway:
Ten Questions Your Pastor Can't Answer
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Jeez – and I was just making up the "10 questions . . ." bit – I didn't know there was a real one! Now imagine how irritating that would be – and so little involved in the real work of religion?
Hey – new person! We obviously disagree on many things, but congrats!
Stewart, thanks for the congrats on the baby! Thanks as well Dan (and I am not new to Two or Three, I am part of the founding trio. I have just been on a 1 1/2 break with my wife and our second son)
Also, thanks for the questions Stewart. I will start working on those for you. Many deal with this creation/evolution debate and many start with evolutionary presuppositions that would make it impossible for me to answer them (kind of like "when did you stop beating your wife?" type questions), but I will try my best to give you a decent answer.
I'm not saying that I have all the answers, but I am saying that I will try to give you a reasonable answer for each one. You might (probably) won't agree with my answer but they do have answers.
And I don't mind questions, that is why I find the "don't question evolution" thing so scary and harmful. My thoughts are if something is true it can withstand any debate, any question, any onslaught of doubt, because in the end it is true.
Maybe we can start a question and answer session with Insulted. We can answer your Christian questions and you can answer our atheist/agnositc/I don't care (Sam) questions. ;)
Sounds good to me :)
Ahrg, lost my comment. Well – look, of course questions are nothing to fear, in the sense that something that is true will always be true. But even if something is true, you can nevertheless convince people that it is false, and that's what's going on here. As the article points out, kids are being presented with sophisticated question-lists, etc., and pointed at 9th grade science classes like ideological child soldiers. Some of the questions are just meant to promote confusion and the (false) idea that science and religion are bitter enemies in a fight to the death (yes, that's why hominid reconstructions look a little apelike, we're just trying to convince kids that God is dead and existence is purposeless – that's it!). Others (while also baseless)draw on details and concepts far too complicated for the venue, which is, of course, the point. We're talking 9th grade science classrooms, where usually at best a few periods out of the year will be spent covering – extremely briefly and carefully) a basic introduction for evolution – not in depth examinations of the Cambrian explosion – that's college, if you're lucky. Simply debunking the groundless claims in that 10 question list would take up most of the time allotted, and go right over most kids' heads, since they never got the opportunity to gain the kind of familiarity with the material that would allow them to gainfully critique it. And that, of course, is the point. There are many reasons to ask questions, the best and highest being to learn and explore. That's not the case here. Here we have questions being used as weapons, to gum up the works of 9th grade biology classes everywhere. I'm sorry you don't see that!
But we can at least both look forward to The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe movie – here's hoping . . .
Dan,
Please don't take me for someone who wishes to eliminate all traces of evolution from high school science. It is a legitimate theory created from legitimate experimentation. I don't mind a teaching going over the theory and introducing students to the concepts that go into evolutionary theory (both cosmic and Darwinian evolution).
Every student should know what the theory of evolution teaches about the beginning of the world, time, etc.; the "creation," if you will, of the earth; the appearance of life; and the evolution of life.
But I think if you spend several periods discussing the pros of the theory and the support behind it, at least one period should be spent to look at the cons and the evidence against it and any other possible explainations.
I would hope the questions were not being used as a weapon, but a tool for better understanding. Hopefully the students want to investigate the claims of evolution and by research come to their own conclusion not being forced into one by preachers or science teachers.
If nothing else, glad to see we can agree on LWW. Here's hoping it makes as much money as Lord of the Rings, so the studio will film all the others as quickly as possible!
One reason evolution gets so much flack is that it is presented as more sure than it is – that is, if the proponents weren't so dogmatic about it's infallibility, critics wouldn't be so vocal.
I really do understand their objections to inserting religion into science curriculum – not that these can't be integrated, but we should not let religion interfere with scientific inquiry. We should also not let science dogma to interfere with the development of science.
The burden of proof should be on the opponents of evolution, but they have been busy for many years bringing forth their proofs of evolution's fallibility – some of their arguments even may have merit.
I think that what ID is doing is really worth doing – questioning our assumptions about what the available data says.
It is too bad that this battle is also being fought in the political arena where facts matter less than popularity with the uneducated masses.
Aaron –
I don't think you want to erase all traces of evolution from hs science classes – but that the idea's even hypothetically on the table! I mean, to not mind it – we never hear anybody saying they don't mind introducing students to worm anatomy, or something . . .
One of the depressing things about these discussions is that a lot of people on, roughly your "side" aren't all that well informed about science – or more accurately, can speak about teeny obscure details while holding serious misconceptions about basic ideas. I see this as a failure of science ed, the fruit of creationist pressure, and the triumph of antievolution propaganda – exactly what people are trying to do with these anti-science campaigns, scripted questions for your teacher, etc.
The theory of evolution says *nothing* about the beginning of the world or the beginning of time, or the formation of the earth. Where did you get that idea?! If somebody told you that, they're telling you wrong. That's like saying we should tell students what immunology says about the rock cycle. Or something.
Evolution also doesn't say anything about the appearance of life. This may sound like a talking point designed to woo theistic evoutionists, but really, it doesn't. It's like history – it requires that we have people, but it doesn't get into where they ultimately came from. That's the job of another (well, several other) disciplines, usually housed in others building on campus.
"But I think if you spend several periods discussing the pros of the theory and the support behind it, at least one period should be spent to look at the cons and the evidence against it and any other possible explainations."
Absolutely. I think we should spend at least one period (which may be all the time spent on evolution – when it's covered at all!) looking into the cons and evidence against it. Following standard guidelines for teaching science, of course.
<sound of crickets chirping>
Cause that's what there'd be. There *are* debates over the exact details, of course, but going over them would be akin to discussing special problems in 18th century Japanese economic history in a 9th grade global studies course. Now, there may be evidence against it that we just haven't recognized yet – that's quite possible – but remember, this is a 9th grade science class! You cover the broad, highly simplified consensus ideas, in order to introduce students to it all.
"I would hope the questions were not being used as a weapon, but a tool for better understanding."
Normally, I wound never say *anything* against questions. I wish I heard a lot more of them! Please, kids, ask! Stop braiding your friend's hair, doodling, staring off into space – please, engage in the material enough that you have a question about it!! (Although you do get students who will ask completely off topic questions mostly just to try to derail the class and get attention). But as the article pointed out, "critics of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection are equipping families with books, DVDs, and a list of "10 questions to ask your biology teacher" . . . The intent is to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of students as to the veracity of Darwin's theory of evolution." The article presents one such list from the Discovery Institute (by Wells), with a mix of questions about philosophical materialism, Haeckel's embryo illustrations, the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment, minute methodological quibbles, and flat-out rhetoric. Many of these questions are misleading, ridiculous, inaccurate, etc. They also refer generically to "textbooks," claiming things that may have no bearing on the actual materials used in the course! These are not genuine student questions. These are not questions intended to help students grapple with and understand the material. These are little IDC smoke and stink bombs, intended to sow confusion and distaste, both for the students and for the teacher.
There is a handy-dandy resource over at the National Center for Science Education addressing these particular 10 questions – you're welcome to <a href = "http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7719_responses_to_jonathan_wells3_11_28_2001.asp" rel="nofollow">take a look!
The whole Narnia series, and soon- that would be truly neat. It's funny – I was always annoyed that they had The Magician's Nephew as #6 – who cares what order they were written in, it's a prequel! – but now that new editions have it as #1, that doesn't seem right at all . . .
I don't know how they would manage The Last Battle. I can see them making Aslan's Country all soft-focus-sparkly and all, and … ugh. And just turning up the color saturation . . . I dunno . . .
Hmm . . .you know, that is interesting – each movie would be such a fundamentally different enterprise. . .
What I was trying to type:
Absolutely. I think we should spend at least one period (which may be all the time spent on evolution – when it's covered at all!) looking into the cons and evidence against it. Following standard guidelines for teaching science, of course.
[sound of crickets chirping]
Cause that's what there'd be.
(forgot about angle-brackets being automatically read as html tags. And look at all the typos! (wince!) – that's how upset this issue gets me . . .
Why can't we just teach kids science??!! Is that too much to ask?
seeker says: "that is, if the proponents weren't so dogmatic about it's infallibility, critics wouldn't be so vocal."
That dumb Galileo! We gave him all the slack we could, but he just wouldn't take a hint and back off! Look, even now he's muttering "Still, it moves . . ."*
*yes, rumor, yes, old hat – but still . . .
And which proponents? Responsible scientists, etc., always stress that science knowledge is provisional and uncertain – one can have degrees of confidence, but never true, absolute certainty . . .
You know, the New Yorker *never* publishes any of my poems! It's bias, I tell you! Bias!
Dan,
I assume you are speaking strictly of Darwinian evolution, since there are evolutionary theories that speak of creation of life. That is one of the problems with this debate – terminology. When someone says evolution it can mean almost anything from cosmic evolution to chemical evolution to macro or Darwinian evolution to microevolution (the only truly observable kind).
Because if there is no intelligent design (or Designer) then we cannot simply start with life and go from there. There must be an explination for how everything came into being and how from there we got life from non-life and then we can move to macroevolution.
Each of the terms are so closely tied together in many minds that if someone says they doubt one type of evolution, say the evolution of all the elements from two original elements, then they how can you doubt that we see the beaks of the finches evolving. You talk about bait and switch, that is bait and switch.
I think a key in the debate is to define and establish the terminology, then we wouldn't waste so much time miscommunicating with each other.
Ok, good idea. One definition & discussion <a href = "http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html" rel="nofollow">here.
I think for this debate, let's use the modern scientific definition of biological evolution. Leave the poor cosmos out of it . . .
Darwinian evolution – that's tricky. Modern evolutionary theory is Darwin+, New and Improved! We've made a lot of discoveries in the last 15 decades (although if Darwin had ever gotten around to reading Mendel – sitting in his library with the pages uncut!- or so I've heard!), who knows how things would have developed?). Folks finally got around to putting Darwin and newfangled genetics together (Neo-Darwinian evolution), added in some even newer ideas, and eventually came up with something called the <a href = "http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html" rel="nofollow">Modern Synthesis. We keep finding out new stuff to add to that, too!
Microevolution vs. macroevolution?
<a href = "http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html" rel="nofollow">Nah . . .
I don't know if there *has* to be an explantion for
1) *everything* starting
2) life coming into being
3) biological evolution
although being human, we will come up with them . . .
Nevertheless, the science folk working on these questions are in different (sometimes wildly different) fields. These questions aren't – from the scientific standpoint – the same question.
"Each of the terms are so closely tied together in many minds "
Better science ed. And less creationist propaganda?
The relation of the terms do not come from the "creationist propoganda" as you put it, but from those in favor of evolution only without thought of any other process.
Take the link you provided for the microevolution vs. macroevolution that groups those together when clearly they are distinct. One is changes within one type of animal as opposed to animals forming different and distinct new types of animals. A dog being a poodle or a bulldog is microevolution. A dog being a horse (or anything outside the canine family) is macroevolution.
And as to there not having to be an explantion for everthing else, I thought that is what science was here for? What is the use of knowing how humans came about if we don't know how we got here or how the earth/universe got here?
I agree the questions are not scientifically the same question, but there are related. If there is more evidence that the universe was created specifically to house life, then it would give more credence to the arguments of Intelligent Design in the growth and development of life vs. Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, Modern Synthesis or whatever else it should be called.
But as of now, most of the ID work is "in the beginning" (looking at the creation of the universe and the earth) right now, so allowing those discussions in public school is not going to directly (or immediately) impact the evolution of species. In the long term, it will but it is possible for someone to belief in both ID and evolution. They are not totally mutually exclusive. I would argue that they are, but I know of people who hold to both views or pieces of both views.