The Debate
I am perplexed by this debate, put by some as "Intelligent Design and Darwin's Theory" and by others as "Neo-Creationism and Darwin's Evolution." Why does this have so many people (especially scientists) up in arms? Isn't science supposed to be about debate? Of course, historically, people fight against changes to dogma. Gallileo ran into this when he challenged the Earth-centered model of the universe and presented evidence that pointed to a sun-centered system. The evidence he gathered was written off, ignored, denounced as unscientific. He was imprisoned, threatened and put under house-arrest. It seems to me that we are imprisoned by science theory that doesn't want to be theory. It doesn't want to flex and be tested in light of new evidence.
Why? What are people afraid of?
I think that many people, especially scientists, make themselves into their own gods, based on their own intellect. Maybe, then, they are afraid of reckoning with a God that is in control more than their own intelligence? Maybe they're afraid of facing a God that they have been denying for so long?
I doubt that those so adamently against Intelligent Design would agree that fear has anything to do with their disagreement. They dismiss ID as "junk science" and then do not deign to engage in the debate. This to me seems like a weak excuse to avoid confrontation. It's like saying "I'm right, you're wrong and I don't even need to argue with you to prove my point."
I'm sorry, but that just doesn't cut it. That is unscientific.
On a side note, as a teacher, this has clear implications for me in terms of what I teach my students about how science works. What implications does it have for you?
3 Comments:
At 7:36 AM,
Quadfire said…
Blah I agree part of it stems from fear. If you believe in evolution, then you aren't held responsible for anything. It's all just natural selection. I've heard many debates between scientist's arguing between the two, and no matter which side they're on they don't like to see the others view. It's to uncomfortable for evolutionist to explore anything else.
as far as schools being sued for teaching two theory's thats just ridiculous.
At 2:44 PM,
Dan said…
I'm one of those folks who thinks ID is a bowl of baloney. I think what you're missing is that scientists aren't afraid -- they've thought about ID, debated it, and dismissed it. That's why they don't want it taught in schools. The discussion about its merit has ended, and the discussion concluded that ID is junk. It's got nothing to do with fear or morality -- most scientists believe in God.
If this truly perplexes you, feel free to email me. I'd be glad to discuss it with you. Like a good scientist, I have an open mind.
At 12:06 AM,
Natalie said…
I don't know that scientists have a lot to do with it, in all honesty. When debates like this make it into the court room them scientists get called in on both sides as expert witnesses, but that's a litigation tactic. It might galvanize the public debate, but it doesn't start it. And it doesn't really settle it, either. People like Dan here could point to journal articles debunking the idea of irreducible complexity in general or allegedly irreducibly complex biomolecular mechanisms specifically all day long, and most of the nation will neither know nor care. They don't want to know the how of these theories, and most of them probably couldn't give you a straight answer about how much philosophy of science we should teach in our K-12 science classes even if someone had the sense to ask them. Those aren't what you hear in the news, and I think there's a reason.
I think the reason is that this isn't so much about science and religion as it is about civil rights (or rather, the popular version of civil rights). I think there are essentially two things going on: first, a sense that They are telling Us what to do; and second, a sense that the Scientific Community ought not to be criticized by outsiders.
I think it's a general tendency to be offended when the status quo is disrupted. If the incumbent philosophy of science divorced the questions of "how" and "why" and some group tried to force on our schools a philosophy of science that collapsed them (as opposed to the other way around, which is what's actually happening), I expect we'd be having much the same debate as we're having today. It doesn't particularly matter how the status quo is being disrupted. Just so long as the blame can be pinned on some easily identifiable group.
Second, I think there's a general sense that the Scientific Community is a priestly college unto itself and ought to change only from within. I doubt that things would be quite so vociferous if the public had a sense that this was an essentially scientific dispute. But they don't feel that way; they feel like the Religious Right is dictating to the Scientists with the help of some hired guns. Underlying the "junk science" rhetoric is the sense that scientists police themselves, and only scientists should police other scientists. What the ID activists are really proposing is that the Scientific Community has been captured by its incumbent philosophy and is largely incapable of policing itself on this issue, and that's a particularly egregious form of blasphemy in America. For anybody who isn't a scientist to critique the way science is done in this country, no matter the critic's academic or intellectual qualifications, simply Isn't Done. But I don't think the public particularly cares (or even knows) about the substance of the critique. The sin is simply that a critique is being made.
Personally, I think that's what's going on. I agree that this isn't really a scientific issue. If it was, we wouldn't be hearing about court proceedings in the news. Instead, we'd be reading and hearing stories about molecular biology and information theory and how you can build an eye out of nothing but a bunch of properly wired binary photoreceptors. But I don't think it's so much scientists making an idol out of their intellect and not wanting to confront God in a new way. I think it's America (which includes many scientists) making a priesthood out of scientists and not wanting to tolerate what they perceive as an attempted coup by the laity.
Post a Comment
<< Home