First of all, let me give a disclaimer about this blog entry. As you may know, part of the mission of this “ugly blog” is to break the stereotype of Christians being fanatic arguers who all use their blogs primarily as a means to rant about hot button issues like abortion and evolution. Well today I’m going to digress slightly from that mission and talk a little about the evolution debate. However, hopefully you will realize I’m not an angry Christian arguing out of blind faith (although I’m not dissing those Christians either), but rather out of genuine concern for the upholding of the scientific method as it relates to the education of our society regarding the origins of the earth and humanity.
In Pennsylvania eight families are suing the school district to get them to stop presenting Intelligent Design, as a possible creation theory, before teaching evolution to 9th grade biology students. In fact the teachers are hardly even required to present it. From what I’ve gathered, they basically just have to read a statement disclaiming the certainty of Darwinian evolution and mentioning the possibility of Intelligent Design. Here’s the article to fill you in on the details before I add a few more comments about the situation…
By MARTHA RAFFAELE, Associated Press Writer
HARRISBURG, Pa. - A biology professor who supports classroom discussion of “intelligent design” testified Friday that major peer-reviewed scientific journals shun articles on the concept because it is a minority view.
To endorse intelligent design comes with risk because it’s a position against the consensus. Science is not a democratic process,” University of Idaho microbiology professor Scott Minnich said under cross-examination.
Minnich testified on behalf of the Dover Area School Board, which is defending an October 2004 decision to require students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. Teachers opposed the statement, which says Charles Darwin’s theory is “not a fact” and has inexplicable “gaps,” and refers students to the textbook “Of Pandas and People” for more information.
Eight families are suing to end the practice, saying it violates the constitutional separation of church and state because it essentially promotes the Bible’s view of creation.
Intelligent design supporters argue that natural selection, an element of evolutionary theory, cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms.
Minnich testified that intelligent design is based on science and doesn’t require adherence to any religious belief. He also praised the prescribed statement to students.
Like some other advocates of intelligent design, Minnich acknowledged that he believes the designer is God, but he stressed that is a personal belief, not one based on science.
The trial, which began Sept. 26, is being heard without a jury and was expected to conclude with closing arguments Friday afternoon. The judge was not expected to rule immediately.
The plaintiffs are represented by a team put together by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The school district is represented by the Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Thomas More Law Center, which says its mission is to defend the religious freedom of Christians.
It’s my blog so can I just say this? Stupid parents! They wouldn’t know the scientific method if it hit them on the head. They would rather their children grow up and learn an outdated, flawed theory as fact, then to allow them to be exposed to a scientific theory which happens to be held by many of Christians. I should add that this alternative viewpoint also happens to hold an abundance of scientific evidence. Oh, and its not like their kids will even be subjected to an entire day of Creationist teaching–they simply get to hear a statement from a teacher who may or may not inflect seriousness into its reading.
The problem with these parents is they assume Intelligent Design is only for Christians, and that Christians are promoting it only as a means of infiltrating the public school system with their religious beliefs. That’s got to be either straight up ignorance, or else it’s clouded judgment and mass deception which the Bible warns will come in the end times. Nobody is trying to lead their children in a 9th grade biology class sinner’s prayer, or make their children subscribe to a Christian world view. While it has unfortunately been the Christians who have had to fight just to keep science-related education accountable, they’re simply trying to keep this important part of science what it is: science!
To say that the Intelligent Design theory has no place in the classroom during the teaching of evolution takes the science out of science. It turns that evolution education into a belief system and not a theory which should be tested by the scientific method. Yes I am well aware that there is also a contingency who say that evolution is a fact and not theory, or that it’s a fact and a theory (easily found on the internet by the well publicized and widely disseminated articles by the likes of Laurence Moran). What can I say about those scientists? The same as I’ll say for the stupid parents…sure they’re smart people, but they’re either ignorant to the facts of Intelligent Design, or they’re clouded by the gross darkness of “end times deception” (which I suspect is more likely the case).
So in case you’re one of those stupid parents, here are some basics about the scientific method which I pulled from this website which is a resource for a Physics 7 class (Relativity, Space-Time, and Cosmology) by UC Riverside Proffesor Jose Wudka:
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.
The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced: one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false. The conclusions will hold irrespective of the state of mind, or the religious persuasion, or the state of consciousness of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation. Faith, defined as belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, does not determine whether a scientific theory is adopted or discarded.
A theory is accepted not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the proponent, but on the results obtained through observations and/or experiments which anyone can reproduce: the results obtained using the scientific method are repeatable. In fact, most experiments and observations are repeated many times (certain experiments are not repeated independently but are repeated as parts of other experiments). If the original claims are not verified the origin of such discrepancies is hunted down and exhaustively studied…
As you can see, the scientific method by its very nature discludes faith as a means of determining theories. It also does not provide an “ending point” to the flow chart, wherein we should infinitely discontinue testing theories or even physical laws (facts). Any scientist will admit that commonly held theories have been disproved throughout history.
How should we apply this to the teaching of evolution and Intelligent Design? The evidence should be presented. The theories should be presented without bias. Where a theory is known to be fallible, it should be made known. The scientific process should continue with the next generation. It should not hit a dead end because of stupid parents trying to suppress a theory which differs from the one they adhere to.
In general, even secular-worldly parents will agree that their children will be better rounded for learning about differing viewpoints in any arena. It may help broaden their perspective, expand their horizons so to speak, and even (gasp) make them more tolerent of others beliefs. See for some reason, many of those same parents would probably be fine with their children taking a world religions class in which many different faith-based belief systems are introduced. But for some reason they don’t want their children to get a well-rounded perspective in the arena of science, perhaps because they’re afraid their child will hear the statement read by the teacher and instantaneously drop to their knees and convert to Christianity. I can see it now…revival breaking out in the lab, teachers baptizing students with beakers, recitation of the Genesis account, a student breaks out his guitar and leads the class in a few hymns…
That’s probably not going to happen (unfortunately). Even most Christian teachers probably won’t even take the court-approved momentary opportunity to emphasize the value of the Intelligent Design theory. I learned that lesson in 9th grade Earth Science class. One day, the school brought in a guest speaker to talk to our class, actually it was two classes combined into one classroom for this special event. He proceeded to tell us about the magical and spiritual powers of crystals, how they had saved his life on occasion, and passed a “living” rock around the room for us to squeeze and feel its energy. I distinctly remember what I said when I raised my hand to speak out…
“Rocks are not alive,” I said. “Do you actually think that rocks are alive?”
Our guest speaker graciously disagreed with me and took the opportunity to further explain the energetic qualities of crystals.
“I’m sorry,” I said, “but rocks are not alive.” At that point my teacher asked me to be quiet.
When the presentation was over and the guest speaker had left, my teacher made a point of singling me out in front of the class and reprimanding me for my lack of respect for our guest speaker. You see, this teacher had a sign above the blackboard in the front of the classroom which said,
Respectfully Question Authority
In retrospect, the lesson of respecting authority was a good one, and the phrase has stuck with me even if it was embedded for the wrong reasons. I wish that I had been able to explain to my teacher that the guest speaker was by no means a scientific authority, and was teaching us no less than unadulterated New Age Spiritualism in a class that was supposed to be about Earth Science. The part that hurt the most was that this teacher was known for being a Christian. I was actually excited to be in his class for that reason. Then he (who was rightly the authority as my teacher), humiliated me in front of my peers instead of backing up my freedom of expression as I would have expected a fellow Christian to do. He should have been sending us home with a note of apology for teaching Spiritualism in a science class, but instead he decided to point the finger at me to distract from the failure of that day’s educational value.
Today I don’t regret the experience because it caused me to grow, but it also heats me up about science education. If Christian teachers won’t even take given opportunities to hint at the Truth, how can we sit back and watch as a handful of stupid parents try to take away what tiny bit of ground we’ve gained for Truth in the classroom?
For a great blog by an Intelligent Design proponent (reformed nuclear physicist), check out He Lives.
If you’re sick an tired of the ACLU, consider supporting the ACLJ, an organization committed to protecting your religious freedom.
Obviously this entry has not been an unbiased opinion, but it’s my ugly blog, so you can take it or leave it. -Eric