James Lileks brings his unique perspective to the nature of the whole Intelligent Design debate. I like it.
Some Christian fundamentalist types can be pretty creepy, but at the same time, some anti- or a-religion folks get awful panicky about anything that even smacks of a God-type figure in public discussions. Because first you start mentioning God, and next thing you know, we're all chanting Biblical verses in unison, a new inquisition starts, there's money missing off the dresser and your daughter's knocked up. I've seen it a hundred times.
As best I can tell, most religious Americans do not want to get in your face about religion. They see Intelligent Design the way Lileks sees it: God guiding evolution in some way. I suspect that all President Bush meant was that when teaching evolution, teachers should add, "Some people believe that evolution is too complicated not to have a designer, and some people believe that designer is God, and Jimmy stop trying to light Amber's hair on fire." The problem, as usual, is that the most hard core are also the most noisy, so people get the wrong idea about the issue and its limits. Don't listen to the noisy people, or at least do not assume that the noisy people speak for the majority.
That would be like assuming Michael Moore or Bill Maher speak for all, well, whatever. We wouldn't want that, would we?
(Tommy Boy, for those who missed it.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
All I know is that I do not exactly tremble at the idea that students should set aside a class period to question the origins of the universe. Pens down, notebooks away, drop your cynical carapaces, and ask: this, from what? And why?
Yes! (That's genuine agreement, BTW, not irony.)
I actually think a lot of the problem is that it's a battle between hard science and philosophy. Scientists like facts; philosophers like ideas. Science teachers balk at giving over class time to the discussion of philosophy; philosophy teachers balk at requiring tangible, empirical evidence for every conclusion. Thus "ID should be taught in science class" makes science teachers cringe, b/c "some people believe that..." is actually a discussion of philosophy, whether those beliefs include ID, Creationism, Evolutionism, or what have you. I guess that's what I liked most about Alter's article, all other objections or disagreements about his style aside: his suggestion that ID has more place in a high-school humanities and/or philosophy class than in biology. But if science teachers are willing to discuss philosophy as philosophy, there shouldn't be a problem.
Probably true, but I think the science vs. philosophy solution is not a solution, it is a cop out. Philosophy is rarely taught in high school, and I'm struggling to figure out a time when teachers outside of science could deal with this topic as appropriately as they could in a science class. That is, it is much easier to keep religion largely out of the public schools by dealing succinctly with this issue in a science class, rather than drawing it out as a philosophical discussion.
It is a little hypocritical of science teachers not to embrace the 'some people believe' construction. Even for hard core atheistic evolutionists it is their belief, not what they can prove, that says there is a scientific explanation for all life. Considering many scientists believe in some kind of divine spark at some point, it is not that big a deal to introduce the idea that people disagree about how far the divine extends.
Better that than have religious students think that their teachers are anti-religion, and therfore not worth listening to at all.
"Better that than have religious students think that their teachers are anti-religion, and therefore not worth listening to at all."
Yes, Tom - it's better that you would place a higher priority on making knowledge marketable than worthy of pursuing in its own right and on its own terms. Tell me, would you have the same perspective on how to teach Quakers in your class on how to frame the historical implications of and explanations for WWII or the Civil War, or the American Revolution? Of course, they would be pacifists, and therefore not capable, (according to your argument), of appreciating the historical dimension or justifications for our involvement in either war on that narrow (given the context) basis, regardless of the relevant context. But I take it you would still be willing to allow such a view significant weight as a topic within your teaching of the history on these events as such, for their sake, regardless of whether it can be reconciled with the subject matter. It is difficult to imagine how one would have the time to teach all the relevant history of America's wars while continuously engaging the expanded caveat that supposed pacifists in the classroom believe that war is wrong regardless of what you or any of the historical actors had to say about it, but I take it you would still use the opportunity to provide extended justification for or refutation against their (contemporary) views. Perhaps such implicit validation of presentist constructions is useful in teaching history, perhaps it isn't. Or do you just want to impose such deliberately narrow and artificial constraints on teachers of science?
A related question: Would you treat an opportunity to teach about the Third Reich with an extended analysis of the comparitive merits of anti-Semitism as an ideology? Or would you merely relegate such a potentially useful task to teachers in economically depressed areas of formerly Eastern Germany with a significant proportion of the student body identifying themselves as skinheads? I don't see how anyone can take seriously your assertion that the fixed, pre-conceived notions of a group of students are necessarily as worthy of engaging as is the actual subject material.
Dear Montana:
I honestly do not have the first clue what you are talking about. My point was that some religious students might assume that their teachers are being hostile to religion because they refuse to even mention intelligent design or creationism. Some of these students might then shut out those teachers entirely because they think that they are hopelessly biased against them. That's all.
I fail to see how teaching more is somehow teaching less.
TB
(By the way, nice picture.)
TB -
Thanks -
I think not mentioning something is not necessarily so indicative of a sign of hostility as of wanting to stick to a relevant topic. The student isn't taking the course to learn more about himself or herself, but to learn more about the topic at hand. And teaching more is only teaching less if it detracts from being able to teach the topic at all, an aim which is threatened by putting the epistemological grounds of the field (which would be assumed reasonable in order to proceed) needlessly in question. I would similarly assume conversely that a teacher of religion needn't be unduly bothered by having to justify their work or the presumption of a diety useful to it, to someone who takes their course as a provocative platform through which to engage appeals to said person's professed atheism, either, would you?
It is reasonable to ascribe limits to the bounds of give and take required of a student or teacher in a didactic setting, as well as to have discretion in assigning premises through which possible conclusions might be explored. I would not describe a geometry teacher as biased for teaching the bulk of their coursework through the more useful perspective of Euclidean, vs. non-Euclidean approaches, despite what their student's encultured preference might be. Or I suppose you could call such a teacher biased, but not spuriously so or for reasons out of hostility. I thought Conservatives came out on the right side of this debate when they denied that the teaching of Western civilization, as such, was merely to promote Eurocentrism. They defended this view in the face of accusations that the teaching of Greek history in the absence of teaching a supposedly predominant, yet speculative, African/Egyptian contribution was racist, which it was not. It was merely a more plausible view. They rightly stuck to their guns and so should teachers of science as science.
As far as the students go, I'm talking about a possible perception about public school teachers that can easily be avoided by mentioning that there is a debate. That is a far cry from teaching botany in geometry class or the history of China in Western Civ.
For the last time: I am providing a way to limit the teaching of ideas relating to religion in the public school classroom, not expand them. Your analogies do not apply; your limits are unnecessary.
Restated: Do you think it's worth mentioning that one of the sides in this "debate" doesn't care to incorporate the principles of the scientific method?
I remain unconvinced that there is a debate--at least within the context of science. ID remains in the realm of religion; any assertion that it falls under "genuine scientific debate" is disingenuous. Until such time, that is, that we can arrive at an imperical proof of God.
People have all kinds of opinions on many different topics, and those that do not stand up to the scrutiny of inquiry have no place in a classroom, no matter how much I believe in God and His/Her creation of the magnificent complexity of science.
For instance, should I offer my students the caveat, "some people believe that the Holocaust never happened?" Or, "some people believe that Lyndon Johnson conspired to kill JFK?" The only use such statements could have is to demonstrate basic historical inquiry and dismiss these opinions as just that, mere opinion with no basis in fact. I cannot imagine this being attractive to those who support ID...a science teacher who notes that some people believe in it and then shows why it does not stand the test of scientific examination.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have our first Holocaust analogy! That is going to illuminate this discussion.
I repeat: many of the most hard core evolutionists believe that there was some sort of divine spark at some point, why is it wrong to mention that there is a serious debate about how far the divine extends?
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have yet another snide remark that has nothing to do with the actual argument being made! That is going to illuminate this discussion.
Holocaust denial (not, btw, the thrust of the previous post) does serve, unless one is deliberately wearing blinkers, as a fitting analogy, insofar as it addresses the question of what is accepted and rejected by professionals in a field, based on the standards of that field. Are there differences between ID and Holocaust denial? Duh. Analogies often work that way.
I repeat: What "hard core evolutionists" BELIEVE about divine spark is belief, not science that can be proved, nor even debated, within the context of science. I suspect God (in whom I believe, in case you did not get that, either) will keep it that way. That divine spark is the ultimate essence of God, and therefore the ultimate essence of faith. And faith rests, in the end, upon what one accepts through belief rather than proof.
I, personally, want my children to receive religious information from religious professionals, not science teachers, no matter how fleeting the scientists' reference to God (or some other ultimate being). I trust religious professionals more than scientists when it comes to religious questions. What is so bizarre about that?
The Holocaust denial analogy does not work because it is loaded with negative implications that distract from the question, ie: it draws a comparison between the people who deny the Holocaust and the people who believe in some form of intelligent design. They are not the same people. Motivations matter.
No matter how much people who oppose the teaching, nay, mentioning of intelligent design or creationism in the classroom stick their fingers in their ears and yell "NANANANA," science and faith intersect on the issues of life and evolution. That is the truth, scientific or not. I'm not asking them to teach religion, I'm asking teachers to acknowledge that truth.
Any other "truths" that you would require them to "acknowledge," or just this one?
Motivations certainly matter. The motivation of the Kansas Board of Education in its decision of 1999 matters. The politicization of science education is the issue, no matter how willing some are to stick their fingers in their ears, yell "NANANANA," and deny that this larger issue matters more than the fact that science intersects with faith no more than it does with every other observable phenomenon.
I suggest you consider why it is that ID is also loaded with negative implications. Not all people who deny the Holocaust have a political agenda, just as not all people who believe in what they call "intelligent design" have a political agenda. But enough do that we rightly question the ability of either group to corrupt the educational process, the degree of negativity involved notwithstanding.
Okay, I'll let you defend the motivations of Holocaust deniers, and I'll defend the motivations of proponents of intelligent design, and we'll see who comes out on top.
No such comparison of motivation was ever made (between ID advocates and Holocaust deniers), if one actually reads the posts.
Your truth, and mine, is that science and faith intersect. Yeah, I do think that is the ultimate truth. However, wanting a science teacher to offer up his/her version of faith to my children is not what I want. As a parent, I think I have a few responsibilities in the education of my children, and this is one of them. It is not the schools'. It should not be. I don't want it to be.
Montana wrote: "Not all people who deny the Holocaust have a political agenda, just as not all people who believe in what they call "intelligent design" have a political agenda."
Anonymous: I understand your point, and agree that faith should not be taught in schools, but ignoring the intersection between science and faith is a mistake, just like ignoring the intersection between history and faith is a mistake. Should history teachers not try to explain, in brief, what Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, etc., believe when they are describing the history of those people?
No one's defending the motivations of Holocaust deniers, so your non sequitur doesn't count. But your comfort with the same sort of politicization of the dissemination of science that Galileo, et al had to defend against is certainly suspect, as is your unwillingness to distinguish between ignoring something and determining it to be irrelevant to a specific educational curriculum.
Montana, Apparently you are having trouble reading you own words. You compared the motivations of Holocaust deniers to those of intelligent design proponents--not that they are exactly the same, but that they are in some way equivalent. Let me make it easy for you: Holocaust deniers are morally reprehensible; most intelligent design proponents are not. Motivations matter.
I am not talking about politicization of science. We disagree on a simple issue: discussions of intelligent design or creationism are not irrelevant to the teaching of evolution. They are essential to it. Rant on all you want about the purity of scientific theories, because there is something I know as a historian: things people have accepted as scientific truth in the past have been proven dead wrong many, many times.
For the record, I agree with Tom that Holocuast deniers and ID'ers are not the same, not analogous, not comparable, not even in the same boat. Nor are LBJ conspiracy theorists comparable with ID. Holocaust deniers are morally reprehensible. Holocaust denial is not a valid argument; it's not true, it's been proven to be untrue. The LBJ conspiracy theory has been proven untrue as well.
ID has not been proven to be untrue or true, nor will it ever be. Some things are not verifiable via scientific method or any other. That does not mean they are not true.
And again, Tom is right, "Rant on all you want about the purity of scientific theories, because there is something I know as a historian: things people have accepted as scientific truth in the past have been proven dead wrong many, many times."
As I've written elsewhere, I do not expect science teachers to teach Intelligent Design, however, is it not the responsibility of a scientist (by the way anonymous, I hate to tell you but the science teacher your kids are likely to have will not be a scientist, they will be a person with a teaching credential who was able to pass a rudimentary subject-matter test; not exactly an expert) to acknowledge competing theories? Simply by referencing another theory or belief does not mean you as a teacher accept it. Further, as Tom mentioned, most scientists will not deny the possibility of some sort of divine 'spark'. Belief in God, ID, creationism or whatever you want to call it does not preclude the acknowledgement that evolution is a valid theory (keep in mind that it is just that; a theory not without shortcomings and changes over the last 200 years). Why can't a science teacher teach the theory of evolution while acknowledging the fact that many millions of people of differing beliefs believe that the universe was created by some divine spark? Just because you may believe that does not mean you can't also believe that species of animals evolve over time.
C.S. Lewis wrote much more eloquently on this topic than can I (so, I might add, has Tom as indicated by my many references to him).
For the record, I certainly don't agree with any of the words that have been put into my mouth by others. Any motivations I compared were on the basis of whether or not they are politically motivated, which for the newly initiated, broadly, means in search of a policy goal, regardless of whether or not Tom is too pure to talk about that. But I believe the people of the state of Kansas and many other states might beg to differ on such a judgmental dismissal. Whether or not another group seeks a policy goal based on revising our understanding of the holocaust or of whether nature is or is not "intelligently controlled" is irrelevant in this context. Feel free to instead graft on any other group associated with a political goal that seeks an accompanying change in public education, into the discussion, and we can instead debate that, if the identity and cause of one in particular is what some find to be so distracting. Or refrain from the analogies that are found to be so distracting, it's hardly the point, and I hardly care either way. I'll accomodate the sensitivities of others when objectivity is still a possible goal, as I suspect it is for you.
I applaud your sanity in acknowledging that science teachers shouldn't be expected to teach intelligent design - a very realistic view seeing as how they largely agree and would, it appears, refuse on principle to do so. But Tom's discomfort at the fact that there are standards for what is to be considered a competing theory within science itself doesn't mean that those standards don't exist. He has yet to provide his stance on the relevance of the scientific method. A "divine spark" is a philosophical construct that has nothing to do with science or its methodology. Some one can believe that, teach science or do it for a living, and find it no more worthy of mentioning in their curriculum or work than what they had for breakfast, which is also not relevant. Nor is the fact that they love their kids - again not relevant. The need for creationists in the classroom or while lobbying the board to feel personally validated, also not relevant. If you think it is instructive for teachers of astronomy to talk about the struggle against the insistence of the church to maintain heliocentric thought, that is instructive because the historical debate has had time to play out and evolve, and teach us the lessons of why cultural institutions shouldn't be allowed to displace the discussion of science as nothing more than the interpretation of objective, measurable observation. But that lesson is still not learned if one only goes to the point of demanding co-existence or competition or positively acknowledging the presumed cultural dominance of unmeasurable, non-facts, or sentiments associated with them, as constituting an equally worthy "theory" alongside those which have put to their disposal the rigor of the scientific method, so exalted and high and mighty as it might be.
And am I living in a time warp? The history of science vs. religion is replete with one side claiming relative importance out of nothing other than provenance, and it sure hasn't been the side of science, so the snide "purity" references need to be re-worked. Talk about not understanding motivations!
I have nothing wrong with anything in science being revised or revoked, as long as it is in accordance with the same rigor of methodology that Dr. B. apparently derides. Indeed, it is the constancy of this process that is a hallmark of science, and what makes it so successful as a system for explaining the natural world. If this is fulfilled, the motivation matters little to me. I suppose that is why Dr. B. fails to engage on that point, but as he has himself stated, he is unfamiliar with science as an institution, and I would gather from his responses, with the scientific method, as well. That's certainly a pity, but not one that I feel higher and mightier about.
I take Einstein to have spoken as eloquently about this topic as anyone, and his belief in God and what he metaphorically saw as evidence for him in nature is well known. It never got in the way of his work until he allowed it to influence his judgment in prematurely dismissing quantum mechanics. Famous quote - "God does not play dice with the universe," indeed. It sounds like the intelligent designers would unfortunately agree with and gladly repeat Einstein's famous folly.
I think I should point out that while I agree with Greg's well stated, intelligent point that not everything true (again, this is a philosophical matter) is scientifically verifiable (also a speculative if not ill-worded concept), I don't think that means that ideas that discount scientific methodology might be as necessarily useful for increasing or enriching our understanding of the natural world. While there are many phenomena for which humans haven't developed the tools or technology to measure, that doesn't mean I would assume that they never will, and it certainly doesn't mean that ideas that discount it should be touted alongside instruction in methods that don't. Many shortcomings in science are based on the limitations of what humans have endeavored to investigate, which is obviously finite. But that's an issue of the extrapolations of human interpretation, and the changing limits of human exploration, not the scientific method.
Montana:
Keep slithering around that comparison, even broadly, between Holocaust deniers and proponents of intelligent design. If you don't know that the differences in motivation between the two make any comparisons bankrupt, then perhaps you shouldn't be lecturing anyone on anything--including science, a subject about which I might know a little more than you keep making snide comments about.
In fact, Mr. Science (criticizing Einstein--is there any end to your hubris?), explain how and why humans developed much greater intelligence when every other animal developed stronger physical attributes. Explain why humans are self-aware, why they are the only animals that use complex tools and complex languages. When you've gotten through all of that highly controversial material, tell us all how life began--how the inanimate became animate. Until you can do all of that definitively, you are accepting that there are scientific answers to those questions entirely on faith in Western Civilization's latest definition of science.
And as it stands, the only person with a dogmatic, unbending faith here is you.
And a question for Dr. Bruscino in particular is whether these "dead wrong" pronouncements on the reversal of previous interpretations were not made as a result of scientific methodology. If they were, he has no more standing to proclaim their validity than what they replaced. Again, the meaning of all this is moreso a philosophical matter than how science works to achieve what it does as compared to alternative systems of understanding. Perfection is not so much the issue as is a process, that if not demonstrably perfectible, has achieved a sufficient quantity and breadth of success through a particular process that is comparably worthy of our understanding.
(By the way, I'm not saying Einstein did not make mistakes, but our friend has unashamedly set him or herself up as the authority on all matters science, without any proof that we should accept his or her claim to that authority. Put it this way--I rather doubt Montana is anywhere near Einstein's league as a scientist. A little humility might be a good idea.)
As far as the question about reverals goes, which scientific methodology are we talking about? It's the methodology that has changed, and its the methodologies that have come up with dead wrong interpretations in the past. Is it conceivable that there might be a different methodology out there that might fix the flaws in the current one?
Maybe its some cool thing we've never even heard of.
M.U.L.,
thanks for the compliment. Speaking of unaccountable natural phenomenon that we as humans have not yet fully explained, measured, domesticated or otherwised usurped, I personally would like students to have to take a course, or at least a unit in their life-science classes, on phenomenology (Edmund Huserl, Maurice Marleau-Ponty, etc.) Again, it is not a science so maybe it too belongs in a philosophy course, but it is a valuable tool for understanding the natural world, to be balanced with a sound understanding of science and religion.
And for God's sake (or Darwin's sake, I don't want to offend anyone) explain your friggin' name! Who are you oh, urban legend of our 41st state.
Is this your attempt at moderation from your last post?
How my "hubris" at Einstein - (wow are you misreading motives! - for the record, Mr. History, which scientist was it who said that honest criticism is the greatest asset a scientist can have in a friend?) - is any worse than that of Werner Heisenberg, Steven Hawking, Brian Greene, or any other living physicist today who doesn't dispute quantum mechanics is an interesting one. That you stated so much as the force of Einstein as a historical figure in science, or whatever reason should make him intellectually infallible displayed a disturbing trend. Now you claim to have modified your position, and instead replace it with an empty assertion that I am relying on some kind of personal "authority." Where?
Self-awareness, tools, language, don't have definitive explanations. My posts reveal I don't believe definitively infallible explanations to be the purpose of science. Only the capacity to come up with stronger ones that deal with the same subject matter than any other on a more consistent basis. I have recurrently put out the caveat that with humans involved in science, the limitations of human interpretation are evident in the process - but I think you neglected to read that. I don't find any of these revelations to be consistent with dogmatic, unyielding faith, your previous declarations notwithstanding.
For the record, I find what Kurt Godel had to say instructive: no system is entirely consistent if it is entirely complete. He, after all, was a logician, and logic is not incompatible with science, or with imagining some cool, as yet undiscovered methodological approach. But what's wrong with acknowledging that in the meantime, both science and faith, (as well as the two put together), are?
And I am wondering if you would still care to answer the question posed in my 8:06 PM post, not to score points against one another, but just because the intellectual exercise of it might be worthy of engaging, or God forbid, fun! I am talking about the scientific method generally.
Thanks, BTW, to greg. I'll explain more and address what you ask soon. This definitely need not be about mud-slinging!
One thing before tomorrow (if this continues), regarding greater intelligence, self-awareness, "animate" from "inanimate" (culturally defined, of course, unless scientists will agree on which of those falsely neatened categories viruses fall into - hint: they don't), tools, languages, etc. One thing that typifies those skeptical of science is a discounting of the role of statistics, probability, and chance. Some species are in a better place and at a better time in terms of their own current physiology and ecological niche for a population variant or change to be of adaptive use. Anthropologists agree that the fossil record shows cranial capacity was increasing for the primate line all the way through H. sapiens. Why intelligence is any less "physical" an adaptation than smell, sight, etc., in others seems to be a spurious dismissal of adaptation as a generalizable process. Like with heliocentricism, it's likely that some humans have distinguished their intelligence as a "special" trait - (as opposed to that of dolphins?), simply because they have it.
An incredibly interesting development was the elucidation of the role of the FOXP2 gene, where one single nucleotide change from chimps to people appears to have completely altered the role of this product to participate more fully in the complex signalling of both neural tissues and those with which they interface to allow for the fine motor signals controlling speech, as well as development of the parts of the brain that provide the input for that capacity. Molecular clocks look at the rates of population diversity around certain genes in non-coding regions (whose changes would not be advantageous or not advantageous and therefore liable to stable rates of random, mutational change) to time the divergence of new forms of genes. Around FOXP2 the amount of variation in humans is so low compared to that around other genes that accomplished methodology has shown it to have diverged from the chimp version no more than about 120,000 years ago. Population geneticists refer to phenomena such as these as a "selective sweep," since they were so advantageous that they basically replaced any older versions and the associated non-coding regions surrounding them. The possible implications range from enhanced language acquisition to tool use, to more sophisticated group behavior including culture. Molecular genetics is a field that is evolving and expanding in its explanatory power very quickly, but not quickly enough for some. Not a bit of it makes much sense outside the context of evolution, any speculation or sentiments of divine or otherwise "intelligent" intervention notwithstanding. For those interested, there was a very good series of articles showing the methodology and outlining the discussion in Nature in 2002, I believe.
This skims the surface, but you can see you intricate, provocative and worthy of exploration the story is. At the least, things like this are worth looking into, and noting that for all the complexity, there is no place where a "divine spark" or as Gary Larson of the Far Side put it, "a miracle happens here" helps enrich our understanding of the collective narrative that I describe above, and which was so well reported by science writers at the time. Did it even get on the radar screens of those so intently and wistfully following "intelligent design?" I doubt it.
Narratives such as these are apparently necessary to repeat and publicize as they recur, because they remind us that science is not an infallible snapshot of a "theory of everything" questionable at any one time, but a process, a fascinating process, and given everything, yes, a very successful and powerful process. If science explained everything at any one time that people endeavored to question then people wouldn't be collecting data, devising experiments, or in short, doing science. The moment they have is when it should be clear that science has lost its capacity to something with greater explanatory power over the natural, observable, measurable universe.
Greater cranial capacity does not necessarily mean greater intelligence, and whether the relationship is cause or effect is in dispute anyway. Stephen has a giant head--we still haven't figured out what that means except that he is easy to find in a crowd. And maybe dolphins are smarter than humans, at least they don't waste their time debating academic points on their computers.
So in the end the answers to the specific questions I asked are not definitive, they are speculative. And your assertion that "there is no place where a "divine spark" or as Gary Larson of the Far Side put it, "a miracle happens here" helps enrich our understanding of the collective narrative" is one with which I, and many others, disagree.
My point is that you are accepting on faith that there is a scientific explanation to fill in the gaps, while proponents of some form of intelligent design are accepting on faith that there is some sort of divine explanation. Neither is provable. That doesn't mean we should stop trying to prove or disprove each one, but that requires acknowledging both.
Obviously you don't agree, but maybe you should look back over this lengthy debate and consider whether anyone could have learned something about the discoveries and limits of science. All that came from a simply raising the possibility that the divine has some role to play in the creation and development of the universe.
Hehehe...
I don't think the disagreement is irreconcilable. That the divine might play a role is not something I dispute, just that I myself wouldn't refer to that assertion, or the gaps which it attempts to address, alone, as science, or as /necessarily/ helpful in informing the scientific process. The gaps which such speculation might expect to fill might be a part of our collective narrative as a culture, but ditto as regards a specifically scientific narrative.
I think there are varying degrees of speculation.
Personally, and conversely, I also think there is nothing wrong with never finding any given explanation definitive enough, as long as one defines the terms through which they might.
Finally, my anticipation that the gaps will be filled - or that the possibility exists for one to fill in those gaps better, in a manner more consistent with directed observation, by scientific explanations, is not based on faith, but on precedent. Therefore, I don't take it as a given that better explanations which are more consistent with directed observation will occur, or that they won't require revision or be "reversed," just that this is a much more likely possibility than one where faith alone will do a better job of explaining directed observation in a consistent and consistently refinable way. I don't have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, either, just anticipate that the likelihood is also high based on past experience. I also don't think courts are wrong for judgments that were later reversed on appeal when new evidence came to light. But that is not inconsistent with having confidence that they are still doing their job, in fulfilling an incredibly useful, irreplaceable role in society. Fallibility doesn't imply a flawed process.
I think these are largely personal issues, and just as we don't demand what people believe, we don't demand what they don't believe. The limits of science are something I've never denied, and I think that the dialogue could have been useful for "anyone" who had. I also hope anybody who was interested in learning the limits of faith could have found it similarily instructive.
I'm reminded of something I like that Einstein said, to the effect that either everything is a miracle, or nothing is.
Since the issues raised here worth provoking responses have been basically exhausted, I thought this article in TNR was an interesting take on ID from both a perspective of religious epistemology, as well as its intersection with observing natural phenomena.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050822&s=diarist=082205
Philosophy of science/knowledge/truth is certainly worthy of discussion, but it should be acknowledged that such a discussion is so much broader than anything that concerns just science directly that it is not an extreme view to prefer to treat the topic as a separate discussion.
Tom --
Unless I am misreading your post, the problem is that intelligent design is a complete freaking fraud. If I found that my local schools were mentioning it at all I would be pissed because there is nothing intellectually legitimate about it. I am not afraid of God (except inasmuch as I do not want him, her, yahweh, Budda or fairy dust magic maker mentioned in public schools outside of a specific historical context) being part of a public discussion. I just don't want public schol teachers setting themselves up as theologians There are enough things they have to do, and enough aspects of knowledge they do not have, that I do not want them bringing their insight into the evolution debate to bear. Being hostile to intelligent design is not a political stance. It is simply a sign of not being a total nutter. Big difference. You must have had much better teachers than I did if you trust them to be brokering this discussion in the classroom. I'm glad that the average person sees God "guiding evolution in some way." I wonder where the actual evidence is for such a bizarre assertion. Then again, I cannot help notice that you tossed in the Moore/Maher strawman that actually has nothing to do with your argument, so saying things without an evidentiary basis is the least of your concerns. But at least you toss in the Lindsay Lohanesque "whatever," so you have that going for you. Which is nice.
dcat
There needn't be too many analogies to the teaching of other subjects, including history, but one thing I think any parent would find disturbing is if you take the fact that nearly every army from the Nazis to the Allies to the ancient Israelites, thought that God was on their side. Is it intrusive to the scholarship or to the teaching process to mention or even explore that? No. But it is if one then says that a valid scholarly interpretation is therefore, that God was on the side of any of these armies, or of military campaigns at all, just as it is to say that God was on the side of the evolutionary success of humans or of the inception of life generally. No matter how many humans think God is biologically on their side, even if by default by directing a "more intelligent," as yet unlearned, master plan, appeals to belief or popularity don't make this a scientific theory. Evidence. Evidence. God is not "on the side" of science either. But objectivity is. And zero-sum philosophical battles between between science and religion downplay what it is that makes science worthy of study and instruction at all. There's a place for that, just not in the science classroom. Unless, of course, we seek to abandon teaching it altogether.
Post a Comment