Peeling away the layers...
A friend sent an article/cartoon to me, and it's absolutely hilarious. Most of it is one-sided, and I apologize if anyone is offended, but I believe in finding humor in life.
Here's the article: "Intelligent Design Trial"
As a side note, I take this topic very seriously. As objective as it's supposed to be, I find myself to be very emotionally involved in it, and I have to watch myself. The issues behind the Dover, PA court case really play to my curiosity, my pride, my beliefs, my sense of fairness, my hopes, and to some extent my fears. Although I'm glad that I'm interested in it (since most political/current events don't really matter to me), I tend to frown upon people who defend their side as if their person/personality is being threatened. It bothers me that I probably do the same thing.
posted by Katie @ 11:35 AM
28 Comments:
In defense of... well, everyone, court cases do have a substantial effect on everyone. This one directly affects the degree to which religion can be taught in public schools, and the result contributes to the way future society looks. So there are definitely personal consequences to the outcome of this case, and I think it's a good thing that those consequences are part of the discussion of the case.
My own writing on the subject is somewhat emotionally driven, and though I try to maintain stoicism I'm sure my passion shows through. For me, though, it's not even as much about the case itself as it is the idea that people can promote falsehoods in very high profile places (no names mentioned) and be greeted with the "people can believe what they want" response. Sure, they can, but it's unethical to promote their arbitrary beliefs as truth. That's why you see at least some of the strenuous defenses from my side of the aisle.
So what's the best resources on both sides that you all recommend?
Al, I recommend these:
talk.origins has a great overview, particularly this page of "must read" articles.
"Intelligent design" is an invention of the Discovery Institute. There is also a book, Of Pandas And People, which is the one specifically mentioned in the Dover curriculum in question.
The suggestions made by Brian are pretty good.
Hehe...I can't resist posting the following:
I stumbled on this blog post (by Jonathan Wells, one of ID's top supporters) at the Discovery Institute's website. Maybe it's just particularly funny to me because I know Rob, Rich (who taught me bocce ball last friday), Charles, and Dusan (a grad student who did math as an undergrad! yay!), and I'm fairly aware of Avida's basic logic...
But I'm still amused. And I really really like the wording in #5. ;)
http://www.idthefuture.com/index.php?p=846&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#more846
Well, here's one very not-pc, light-hearted commentary.
But on the serious side, it really, really bugs me when people get so wrapped up in their own mindset that they simply discredit the opposition of having any validity at all. That goes for both creationists or intelligent design, uh, people AND evolutionists. There are scientists who absolutely know what they're talking about, but because they support the idea of intelligent design they are given no crediblity from those who reject the idea.
I used to have a list of scientific books that supported intelligent design, but alas the list has vanished. The one that comes to mind is Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box. I tried to start reading it myself, but I haven't taken nearly enough MCB to understand all of what he talks about.
In scientific circles, credibility comes from the ability to present evidence to support one's conclusions. There is no evidence in support of intelligent design; only criticisms (some valid, most not) of evolutionary theory. Intelligent design is not in any way a scientific theory. (For the context of this discussion, I have no stance on its merit as a religious proposition.)
Please understand, the question here is not whether or not we were intelligently designed. The question is whether a religiously founded assertion can be presented in the context of science education as though it had scientific legitimacy.
(Your commentary link was quite amusing, though. Thanks for that.)
As I reread my comment, I think I may have been a bit too perfunctory. Allow me to clarify.
Intelligent design advocates argue that because evolution could not have happened, we must have been designed by an intelligent force. There are many problems with this:
1) It does not meet the standard of a theory. For it to be a theory, there must be explicit evidence in favor of it, not merely negation of a conflicting theory.
2) Evolution is well established, and although many details are still being ironed out, the foundation is solid.
3) Even if evolution were not well established, there could be options besides Darwinian evolution and intelligent design. Just because evolution is false does not cause a competing idea to be true.
4) Intelligent design is based on the premise that greater complexity cannot come naturally from lesser complexity, and to solve this problem posits an unidentified source of indefinitely high complexity as a creator. It does not, however, posit the mechanism by which this source came into existence. Unlike similar problems posed by abiogenesis and the big bang, intelligent design requires the most complex being to exist first, rather than the least.
These reasons are why intelligent design is not a scientific theory and should not be presented as such.
Just a couple thoughts: Isn't the solidness of the evolutionary foundation most of what the debate is about?
Given that evolution isn't true (or at least, the non-intelligent-design form), I'm not aware of many coherant theories on alternatives. That doesn't prove intelligent design is true, of course, but generally coherant theories are better than non-existant ones. And yes, whether or not ID is coherant is um, debatable?
I don't think it is fair to say that ID requires a creator to come into existance. It requires a creator, yes, but does not require a creator that comes into existance. i.e. There is also an option of a creator outside the bounds of time - or at least time as we see it.
(I'm also not clear that the difficulty or probability of anything coming from nothing, matter or creator, is a scientifically viable exercise.)
Just a couple thoughts: Isn't the solidness of the evolutionary foundation most of what the debate is about?
Yes and no. There is no debate in scientific circles about the foundations of evolutionary theory, i.e., the passage of genes from one generation to the next with mutation and selective pressure. The "debate," as far as evolution's validity goes, is entirely an invention of those who don't either don't understand what science is or those who perceive it as a threat to their religion.
The debate about Dover in particular, though, is about the establishment clause. If it can be demonstrated that the curriculum change was motivated by a wish to establish religion, then Dover will lose. It seems almost certain that this will be the case.
Given that evolution isn't true (or at least, the non-intelligent-design form), I'm not aware of many coherant theories on alternatives.
There aren't any coherent theories on alternatives precisely because evolution is true, to as great a degree as can be known at this time. For a theory to supplant evolution, it would have to have all the explanatory and predictive value of evolution, and then add new value.
The "debate," as far as evolution's validity goes, is entirely an invention of those who don't either don't understand what science is or those who perceive it as a threat to their religion.
That is simply not true. Watch the headlines that go through on the major science journals (Nature, Science, Scientific American, etc.), and you'll see that there are indeed members of the scientific community who are questioning the validity of evolution.
Frankly, to be so close-minded that evolution is true and ID is not is to be as foolish as the very people you're trying to attack for their opposite opinion.
No one can deny that there is some level of evolution that takes place in nature. Living creatures change and adapt to their environment. The question is really, to what extent does this happen? And more mystifying than that, how did it all get started?
Get into the question of how it all started, and you'll find even the most brilliant scientists scratching their heads, because even all the "evidence" of evolution fails to provide a satisfactory answer here.
I'll readily admit that I can't debate the science of evolution or ID with anyone. But humor me by simply answering this:
You walk into your room and find the bed is made. You look at someone's CD collection and find that the titles are arranged by genre then placed in alphabetical order. You enter a grocery store and find the frosting next to the cake mix. You need a book at the library and find it on the shelf exactly where you expected it to be. :) Who in their right mind would look at any of these things and think, eh, that just happened by random chance over time. NO! You see things in order, you take it for granted that someone put them in order.
I realize my examples are inanimate things, and a likely retort is that I'm missing the point. Just stop rebutting for a minute and think, please. When you see things that have order to them, do you or do you not assume that someone acted upon those things to bring order to them?
The "debate," as far as evolution's validity goes, is entirely an invention of those who don't either don't understand what science is or those who perceive it as a threat to their religion.
That is simply not true. Watch the headlines that go through on the major science journals (Nature, Science, Scientific American, etc.), and you'll see that there are indeed members of the scientific community who are questioning the validity of evolution.
They are questioning some of the details, not the broad concepts. As I said, the foundation itself is as true as we can know it to be at this time. If we knew better, then the theory would be different.
If you would like to argue that ID supporters understand science, then please illustrate how ID is a scientific theory.
Frankly, to be so close-minded that evolution is true and ID is not is to be as foolish as the very people you're trying to attack for their opposite opinion.
I never said that ID isn't true. I said ID isn't science. The distinction is subtle, but vital.
No one can deny that there is some level of evolution that takes place in nature.
If that's the case, where is the problem?
Get into the question of how it all started, and you'll find even the most brilliant scientists scratching their heads, because even all the "evidence" of evolution fails to provide a satisfactory answer here.
Yes, that is beyond the scope of evolution. There are different theories for that, namely abiogenesis and the big bang. I would find it surprising if we could come up with any theory of what preceeded the big bang, because the math involved is mind-boggling, to understate it.
When you see things that have order to them, do you or do you not assume that someone acted upon those things to bring order to them?
(For the onlookers, this is known as the Watchmaker Argument. Feel free to google it.)
When I see something that has order, I notice it because it stands out from its surroundings, which are unordered by comparison. You are presumably asking this question with the intent of ascribing order to the universe, and thus claiming that someone caused that order. My question to you is, compared to what is the universe ordered?
Even pending a useful answer to that question, assumptions are not sufficient grounds for scientific theory. Centuries ago, people assumed that the earth was the center of the universe. Not even that long ago, people thought Newtonian physics applied across the board. But then little things like planets "backtracking" and the speed of light being a constant regardless of the observer's speed caused those assumptions to fail.
Intelligent design doesn't even rise to the levels of those assumptions because, by its very nature, it cannot be disproven. Hence it is not in any way scientific, and therefore does not belong in a discussion of science.
If you would like to argue that ID supporters understand science, then please illustrate how ID is a scientific theory.
Did I say it was? And why does making ID a scientific theory have anything to do with its supporters understanding science? I said there were scientific books that support it. There are scientists who will argue for Intelligent Design. But to take the definition of science and say, 'the origin and continuation of life must fit in this little box, else it's not true' is foolishness. I would argue that ID is beyond science. Science is just a part of it.
You will also note that I'm not arguing that ID ought to be taught alongside evolution in classrooms. Personally, I'd be happy if they'd just quit harping on about evolution as if it's a proven thing.
Out of time, must run...
Did I say it was? And why does making ID a scientific theory have anything to do with its supporters understanding science?
The context of this discussion is the Dover trial, in which board members mandated a mention of Intelligent Design (with caps) as advocated by the Discovery Institute to be mentioned in the science classroom as though it had scientific validity. Any discussion of intelligent design as a non-scientific concept is not apropos to this debate. And I maintain that those who consider Intelligent Design (with caps) to be a scientific theory do not understand what science is.
I said there were scientific books that support it.
There are books that argue for it, but they are not scientific except insofar that they cite scientific papers, usually out of context. Indeed, the fact that these alleged scientific advances are occurring in books rather than the more common papers and journals might suggest that their authors are more interested in marketing than in learning.
But to take the definition of science and say, 'the origin and continuation of life must fit in this little box, else it's not true' is foolishness.
I agree. I have also never seen anyone say anything like that. The closest I have seen is, "our explanations of the origin and continuation of life must be consistent with the evidence available."
I would argue that ID is beyond science. Science is just a part of it.
Science is currently no part of ID. I might go so far as to say it never can be, since theories emerge from the evidence, not the other way around. And to the degree that you are discussing ID as a non-scientific concept, you are discussing a different ID than the Discovery Institute, the Dover school board, and myself.
Personally, I'd be happy if they'd just quit harping on about evolution as if it's a proven thing.
I'm not sure who the "they" is to which you refer, but I suspect they would quit "harping" on evolution's validity if it were not routinely subjected to inaccurate assaults designed to damage the credibility of the entire scientific community. Most scientists would be perfectly happy to do their work without having to participate in the PR circus that is this "debate."
Good posts, people! I’m having fun reading everything, so thanks! :)
Some (more) musings of my own…this is not directed at any given post above...and feel free to disagree! :)
Asking and addressing perplexing questions is what pushes science forward – it is boring to re-explain things that we already know. As we explore perplexing questions, we have to decide whether our hypothesis can account for the data we gather or whether it may be time to modify or ditch the hypothesis. Evolution, which has long withstood the hypothesis-testing rigor in the field of biology, can nonetheless still be blown out of the water as a theory. How? Well, if we could (for instance) just find one mammalian fossil that dates back to a time period when the earth was only beginning to be inhabited by multicellular organisms, evolution is in deep trouble.
If the scientific community accepts ID as the prevailing theory, they are stuck because no one can present evidence that can overturn ID. Basically, the only thing that could overturn the “theory” is to have someone “prove” that there is no Creator (you could still have a God; you just had to prove that he didn’t play a role in creation). Hm. That sounds impossible, and I certainly don’t want anyone to devote their energy to such a futile effort.
What’s so bad about not being able to overturn ID? Well, okay, what would we be accepting by accepting ID? Some ID theorists claim that the earth is 10,000 years old (this causes problems with interpreting the fossil record). Others claim billions (no problems with interpreting the fossil record). Fossils are supposedly evidence of past events. So some of the theorists now say that fossils aren’t evidence, and some say they are. So should the theorists ignore or accept the fossil record and the questions it brings with it? Some ID theorists claim that humans and nonhuman primates share a common ancestor. Others say that you can make no such claim.
Now, controversies within theories are nothing new, and are often healthy. There is occasionally controversy with the theory of evolution, and that is not seen as a weakness of the theory. But it is VITAL in science that there is some objective mechanism for eventually resolving the debate. My concern stems from asking how scientists from the ID theory begin to address their differences in order to unify the theory. Can they go on “facts” and “evidence?” Not if some of the people discredit the validity or applicability of the evidence. Can they go on beliefs and understandings about the Creator? Not if some of the people disagree about who the creator is, whether to take Genesis literally, and so on. There is no unbiased objective by which to weigh pros and cons of ideas.
And when you get into that last part especially, things start to sound an awful lot like faith. This is not a bad thing – so long as you call it faith and not science! In fact, this is where things get extra-fascinating. Sure, evolution is a cool mechanism, but does it say why we’re here? What we should do tomorrow? Who we should reach out to and help? And does our creator like order? Chaos? Does he prefer fig leaves or capes as a means of clothing? Does he like to create life in a week? Does he like to use evolution as a mechanism to allow life to unfold over time? Does he care that we’re having this debate? Is he a she?
I am coming late to this debate, but as a Christian and a scientist who studies evolution, I agree with just about everything Brian has said. By definition, ID does not produce scientifically testable predictions and does not fall with in the realm of science. Whether or not it is true is a question for philosophers and theologians, not scientists.
I would like to respond to this comment from Sarah:
"Personally, I'd be happy if they'd just quit harping on about evolution as if it's a proven thing."
In some respects, nothing in science is a "proven thing". Science doesn't work that way. Every scientific idea can be modified, adapted, or thrown out when new evidence arises. However, there are some ideas in science that are particularly well supported by the evidence and have stood the test of time. These ideas are so well established, widely accepted, and so likely to be at least fundamentally correct, that they are given the title of "theory". Some of the details are still probably wrong, and will be changed once new research is performed, but the basis is solid and "a proven thing" as far as science can do such a thing.
For instance, physicists are pretty sure they know how gravity works, so we have a "theory of gravity." There are still some details to be worked out, and some things we thought were true about gravity are actually being challenged (google "string theory" if you are interested), but no one would argue that gravity is not a "proven thing".
Evolution is one of these "proven thing" theories. In fact, all of modern biology is based on evolution. Thousands of papers are published every year providing support for the basic ideas of evolution. Sure, there are details that we are still working out, and will be for hundreds of years, because that is how science works.
However, evolution IS a "proven thing" in the same way that the theory of gravity is a "proven thing". In fact, the fundamental basis of evolution is the most "proven thing" in all of biology, and arguably in all of science.
So if you want to say that evolution is not a “proven thing”, logically you also need to do so for the theories of gravity, relativity, cell theory, atomic theory, etc.
I don't have a lot of time at the moment, but I want to thank Katie and Lindsey for their contributions to this conversation. I've been saying that ID isn't science, but you both eloquently described exactly why in a big picture sort of way.
To go off on what is possibly a tangent, the reason I love science is because it opens doors for humanity. The more I understand about the universe, the more I am in awe of it, and the otherwise sterile-feeling objectivity of empericism is what provides for that sense of wonderment. The fact that no theory is perfect does not discourage me, but rather gives me anticipation for the future. Yes, there is more to life than science, but science is a great start.
However, evolution IS a "proven thing" in the same way that the theory of gravity is a "proven thing". In fact, the fundamental basis of evolution is the most "proven thing" in all of biology, and arguably in all of science.
. Evolution, which has long withstood the hypothesis-testing rigor in the field of biology
Yes and no. There is no debate in scientific circles about the foundations of evolutionary theory, i.e., the passage of genes from one generation to the next with mutation and selective pressure.
Just to clarify: Are we talking micro or macro evolution here? The foundations of micro-evolution certainly seem well enough established. But I'm not clear that those are sufficient to leap to macro evolution.
Consider: You measure my ability to lift weights and discover that I can do ten pushups. We implement an exercise program and after a week discover that I can do twenty pushups.
Does it follow that if I maintain this exercise program for twenty years that I can do roughly 10,000 pushups? (Twenty years of fifty weeks of improving by 10 pushups a week?)
When we get to talking macro-evolution, I'm not clear that extrapolating micro-change over small time to macro-change over long time has been at all demonstrated.
On a seperate line of thought, I'm not at all clear that the theory-of-evolution-as-history is at all in the same category as the theory of gravity, atoms, cells, etc. The latter describe the world as it currently works. The former describes the world as it supposedly work.
Macro-evolution is not just a "how do things work now", but also a history question (how did things work). It's like the difference between asking how elephants move and whether or not elephants crossed the Alps with Hannibel.
It's worth noting other fields (history, law) works with a vastly different notions of "proof" than science. Some fields (e.g. archeology) tend to get snapshots or fragments of a picture over time and then attempt to reconstruct a logical story connecting the dots.
Other fields (e.g. material sciences) can create material, test it for some property, and repeat until they either give up or come up with a cohesive theory.
My sense is that significant portions of macro-evolutionary theory (e.g. fossil records) fall into the snapshot category but then get treat as the repeatable category.
Just to clarify: Are we talking micro or macro evolution here? The foundations of micro-evolution certainly seem well enough established. But I'm not clear that those are sufficient to leap to macro evolution.
My comments, and IMHO Lindsey's and Katie's as well, apply to anything that is a current theory. A theory earns its title by meeting high standards, and all current evolutionary theory has met those standards.
To better answer your question, though, I need to ask what you mean by "macroevolution." It's a term that's often bandied about to mean change in the gene population over some arbitrarily large number of generations, but as far as I know has no specific, well-recognized meaning. Anyone who knows better is welcome to correct me.
[After writing the rest of this comment, I've come across several similar definitions referring to evolutionary change that causes taxonomical change. I'm not entirely satisfied with that definition because taxonomies are more inexact that I would like for such a term, but who am I to second-guess real biologists?]
Does it follow that if I maintain this exercise program for twenty years that I can do roughly 10,000 pushups?
The failure of this analogy is that you're comparing a linear growth to a directed change. Evolution isn't about organisms becoming "better" over time; it's about genes that are conducive to survival being more likely to become prevalent. As the conditions change, so do the values of various genes.
For this specific topic, there is a very detailed article on the talk.origins site: 29+ Evidences For Macroevolution.
On a seperate line of thought, I'm not at all clear that the theory-of-evolution-as-history is at all in the same category as the theory of gravity, atoms, cells, etc... My sense is that significant portions of macro-evolutionary theory (e.g. fossil records) fall into the snapshot category but then get treat as the repeatable category.
Interestingly, I was going to use the theory of gravity as a comparison. We can't create planets and set them in motion for a test. We can, however, track their motion relative to each other and use those tracks to surmise the physics behind their motion. Those conslusions can then be verified or falsified through future observation.
Similarly, we can dig up fossils and place them into a hierarchy based on genetic similarity. That hierarchy can then be verified or falsified through future fossil-digging. Like Katie said, if we discover a rabbit bone that doesn't carbon date as we expect, evolutionary theory will get a nice bump.
As far as the question of whether microevolution causes macroevolution, I personally find it likely, but I also think it's a rather minor point compared to the validity of "microevolution" (selective pressure and random variation) and of common descent. Again, I would recommend the talk.origins article for better details than I could ever provide myself.
Brian, that is an amazing website. I would highly encourage Alan, Sarah, and anyone else who questions the scientific "proof" of evolution to check it out. It is a little long, but that is because of the immense amount of evidence in favor of the scientific theory of evolution. (Macro and mirco!)
Also, notice how for each of the 29+ arguments the author gives examples of how one could falsify or "disprove" them. That is the hallmark of real science, and a big part of the point that Brian, Katie, and I have been making about why ID, which can not be falsified, is not science.
I'll say a few comments to add to the fire. :)
The debate between randomly ordered cosmos verses ID is historically very old and captivating. It is still, an maybe always will be, unresolved. It seems many different falsehoods have been presented about the debate, which is why we need education on the topic. And to me that is adequate reason enough to teach both concepts in our schools, perhaps not in an evolution or biology class, but at least in a mandatory philosophy class or something.
I think President Bush said it well "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.”
Is that not the scientific and liberal mind set?
I think President Bush said it well "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.”
Is that not the scientific and liberal mind set?
As a soundbyte, it certainly sounds good. However, in exposing students to different ideas, it's important to give them the truth about those ideas. The truth in this case is that ID does not meet scientific rigor, and therefore does not belong in the science classroom. (Although, in saying that, understanding why ID isn't science is an important thing to teach.)
ID does have a place in a comparative religion class. That's where "schools of thought" are what the class is about. But science class is about theories developed with the scientific method.
I kept debating whether to comment on this... since this is in many ways a cyclic & never-ending debate. I guess I'll just state some of my own thoughts (hence not targeted at any of the previous comments).
I don't know most of you, so I'll state my background first. I'm trained in the scientific method (theory, hypothesis, etc.), have had a solid background in molecular and cellular biology (that area will be 1/2 of my PhD) and medical training (anatomy, physiology, pathophysiology, microbiology, pharmacology, behavioral science, epidemiology, etc.)
About the theory of evolution - I see the evidence for mutations, natural selection, etc. A fascinating subject is the herd of DNA repair mechanisms that exist to minimize errors and maintain the integrity of the genome, but I won't go into that here. The problem I have is the way evolution is taught and learned. There is a general (there's exceptions, of course) tendency for public school students to take all things at face value. Personally, I wasn't encouraged to really THINK about what I'm being taught until college. The other thing is that a lot of people think that evolution explains the origin of the world post-big-bang when it hardly even scratches the surface. I won't go into the impossibility of the "big-bang" here (you can just pick up a good cellular biology book to see how incredibly complex a single-cell prokaryote organism is - and that's not even going into the molecular aspects of signaling cascades and 2nd messengers, and everything else that hasn't even been discovered yet!)
About ID, it's not "scientific" in the purest sense of the scientific method (since it can't be disproven). But I look at ID as a theory born out of the irreducible complexity of many "organs" (as Darwin termed it) that cannot be neatly explained by evolution. I see ID as a formal way of saying "some things are beyond our mental capacity".
(Sigh) I'm being reminded why I dislike these "hot topic" debates - they make me tired. At the end of the day, I just want to go to sleep, not lay awake wondering about the origins of the universe. And at the end of my life, does it really matter if I understand all the scientific evidence for evolution and the theories behind ID?
Bottom line - both evolution and ID are human attempts at understanding the world as we know it.
Some questions to keep you up at night :P:
1) Are the laws of physics and mathematics created or discovered? (e.g. Did E=mc^2 before Einstein worked out that equation?)
2) Why is it that we can easily squash a bug but a tiny virus (the biggest is the pox virus @ 300 nm (10^-9 m)) is able to make us (the "most evolved" mammals) sick / dead? (I know about virus replication and immunology & all that, but that only tells me the method, not the reason)
3) What is the purpose of living since death is inevitable?
Once in a while, I like to remind myself of my existance with perspective to the world: the closest star we know of is Alpha Centauri (~4.2 light years away), which will take 109,000 years to reach if I were to travel via a space shuttle (40,000 km/hr), and 57 million years to reach if I were to go by car (80 km/hr). I am so very very very small! :D
From the website Brian mentioned: The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life... No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.
Which brings us to the question: Can the supernatural be scientifically validated?
(For example, suppose you have a physician who can heal terminally ill people by just touching them with his hands, or by prayer. Let's assume he is kind enough to let doctors do detailed public medical examinations of his patients before and after to confirm the healing, and that we're not dealing in fraud. Can science attribute the above to the supernatural, or merely to "unexplained laws of reality"?)
If yes, how?
If no (science assumes the lack of supernatural involvement), can we use it historically if we do not share it's presumption that history must be without supernatural intervention?
Al, for me to fully answer that question, you would have to define supernatural. However, I would say that if it has a physical impact on the world, it can be discussed in empirical terms. If it does not have a physical impact, how do you know it really happens?
Ruth, I completely agree that students need to understand and participate in the scientific process. Asking questions and seeking out the answers ought to be just as much a part of the science education as learning the current state of the art.
However, the irreducible complexity argument is specious. And the fact that ID is not science is the crux of the debate of its place in the science classroom. The questions you ask are thought-provoking, but are not matters for scientific discussion.
However, the irreducible complexity argument is specious. And the fact that ID is not science is the crux of the debate of its place in the science classroom. The questions you ask are thought-provoking, but are not matters for scientific discussion.
My apologies, I should have clarified that the questions are just for thought, not to be analyzed scientifically. :P After all, if science can answer everything then there would be no other disciplines (philosophy, theology, etc), right?
About science in the classroom, personally, I think the debate wouldn't be so fierce if one steps back and look at science as an evolving method. It is a discovery process, and everything learned from it are based on the fundamental assumption that the methods used are at the very least, highly valid.
Also, the classroom is not the only place where learning takes place. Parents can very well educate their children in religion, Creationism, etc outside of the classroom. Back to the "absorb and spit back out" way of public education; just because something is taught at school doesn't mean it's the end all and be all. Textbooks are written by man, and we are all fallible, or in some unfortunate cases, capable of intentional omissions and fabrications.
Sometimes I wonder about the human hunger to know, to seek the "Truth" and understand. My Faith aside, just based on the scientific knowledge I've learned through the years, I firmly believe that the world is fearfully and wonderfully made - from the patterned arrangement of petals on a flower to the multi-factor, multi-cascade, controlled and balanced coagulation process. It just boggles the human mind (neuro-physiology being another on-going discovery) to think about it all and understand it all - but though we can't fully comprehend, we can appreciate it. :D
About science in the classroom, personally, I think the debate wouldn't be so fierce if one steps back and look at science as an evolving method. It is a discovery process, and everything learned from it are based on the fundamental assumption that the methods used are at the very least, highly valid.
That strikes me as much more than an assumption. If the methods used by science weren't valid, we could never have put a man on the moon, we couldn't be taking pictures of galaxies many light years away, we wouldn't have vaccines, we wouldn't have computers, etc. If there is an assumption in the process, it is that anything that we witness actually happens. If the entire world is illusory, though, much more is at stake than the scientific method.
Of course there is room for development in the scientific method. But unless ID advocates propose such developments, demonstrate why they're an improvement, and fit ID within that framework, ID still doesn't belong in the science classroom, and must be rejected in the science context because of it.
As I said before, comparative religion classes are a fine place to compare religious ideas like this. I won't claim that the fields of science, at least as they currently stand, are adequate to fully understanding life. And you're also right that education is far too focused on echoing facts without understanding, particularly since the inception of No Child Left Behind. The science class I would like to see doesn't teach evolution so much as it takes the students on a path of discovery where they quasi-independently figure out that evolution describes what we see.
That strikes me as much more than an assumption. If the methods used by science weren't valid, we could never have put a man on the moon, we couldn't be taking pictures of galaxies many light years away, we wouldn't have vaccines, we wouldn't have computers, etc.
This thread is making me think a lot! =) You're right. I was thinking on a much smaller scale - namely, the sometimes very frustrating process of designing an experiment and figuring out the power prior to the design, and the extensive process of validating the significance of the results with statistical analysis (ah! the nightmares of Analytical Chemistry - the inherent error of all the instruments and equipments have to be taken into account). Though I can physically "witness" the results from my experiments, it's not publishable data unless I have the statistical support. Often times there are artifacts and noise even with images we can physically see (e.g. MRI, echo, ultrasound, etc)
Science is definitely an "evolution" in and of itself - from the "earth is flat" concept to the galaxy view through the Hubble telescope; from the light microscope visualization of bacteria to the SEM depiction of desmosomes; from x-rays of the skeleton to SPECT (Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography) localization of cellular receptors; from the hand-held chisel to the algorithm programed femto laser; from gravity to quarks... how much more is there that still remain unknown to us now? The more we discover the more we realize how much there is to discover.
This thread is making me think a lot!
I consider this to be one of the greatest compliments possible. ;)
The more we discover the more we realize how much there is to discover.
That's what I love about science. As wonderful as the things we discover from it are, the future prospects those discoveries give us are even more exciting.
Post a Comment
<< Home