Maybe you've heard of a recent poll about how a significant percentage of the American population "rejects evolution". I'm wary of polls, especially in the matter of origins, because the same words mean different things to different people. Anyway, it reminded of this piece I wrote many years back:
= = = = =
Every once in a while, the elites in the scientific circles give a "reminder" to the elites in the academic circles, and the drive-by media barely touches on the story. The portrayal of the story comes across as simply something along the lines of "Don't teach religion in science classes" and that "Evolution is true, and anything that sounds a little different is bogus."
This is happening again right now.
The problem is that the news media stories are too short to fully describe the situation and to define terms. This latest round referred to a report that seemingly stressed how we need to educate students in a way that will allow them to effectively fight mutating diseases, and that's why we have to present a unified philosophical naturalism in science curriculum in order to do that.
When the term "evolution" is used, it needs to be defined. Are we talking microevolution? Are we talking macroevolution? Are we talking philosophical naturalism, which is a philosophy? We we taking about homo sapiens emerging from less advanced hominids? Are we talking about living organisms arising from nonliving materials?
When using the term "creationism", do they mean young-earth Biblical creationism? Do they mean the idea that something outside the universe could have been responsible for some things within the universe - Biblical God or not? Defining "intelligent design" as synonymous with Biblical creationism does a disservice to students. While Biblical creation could be considered a form of intelligent design, not all intelligent design constructs fall within a straightforward interpretation of Biblical descriptions of origins.
The term "intelligent design" should not be banned from serious consideration in public schools. We engage in intelligent design all of the time these days, such as with genetic engineering. Nor should the reality of "irreducible complexity" be ignored. While presenting macroevolution as true, the schools should at least boldly own the fact that "since" it is true, irreducibly complex organisms and systems must have therefore evolved via punctuated equilibrium, and that this phenomenon happened many, many times. All the interconnected parts must have emerged fully developed (or at least developed enough to provide a beneficial function) in an instant. So what if that would make philosophical naturalism seemed far-fetched? These are science classes, not philosophy classes, and we need to be true to the empirical evidence, right? Finally, both the major disputes between various evolutionary hypotheses and the serious unanswered questions about some or all of these constructs should also be presented. After all, aren't we trying to inspire the students to move science forward?
I recall biology and life science curriculum up through high school to be mostly about the present-day functions of organisms and organs, life cycles, reproduction, and so forth. I hardly recall any teachings about mutating diseases. That belongs in higher education, it would seem. However, the reality of mutating diseases is in no way contradictory to supernaturalism, creationism, intelligent design, or irreducible complexity. In fact, mutating diseases fall right in line with many of their constructs. So, in theory, it would be entirely possible for a student to graduate from higher studies a creationist and still be effective at fighting mutating diseases.
So really, the latest hubbub seems to be pointless to me. And since I believe in separation of state and school, we really shouldn't need to spend so much time debating what should be taught in the schools. Send your own children to the schools you think best. Keep your hands off of my children.
= = = = =
Every once in a while, the elites in the scientific circles give a "reminder" to the elites in the academic circles, and the drive-by media barely touches on the story. The portrayal of the story comes across as simply something along the lines of "Don't teach religion in science classes" and that "Evolution is true, and anything that sounds a little different is bogus."
This is happening again right now.
The problem is that the news media stories are too short to fully describe the situation and to define terms. This latest round referred to a report that seemingly stressed how we need to educate students in a way that will allow them to effectively fight mutating diseases, and that's why we have to present a unified philosophical naturalism in science curriculum in order to do that.
When the term "evolution" is used, it needs to be defined. Are we talking microevolution? Are we talking macroevolution? Are we talking philosophical naturalism, which is a philosophy? We we taking about homo sapiens emerging from less advanced hominids? Are we talking about living organisms arising from nonliving materials?
When using the term "creationism", do they mean young-earth Biblical creationism? Do they mean the idea that something outside the universe could have been responsible for some things within the universe - Biblical God or not? Defining "intelligent design" as synonymous with Biblical creationism does a disservice to students. While Biblical creation could be considered a form of intelligent design, not all intelligent design constructs fall within a straightforward interpretation of Biblical descriptions of origins.
The term "intelligent design" should not be banned from serious consideration in public schools. We engage in intelligent design all of the time these days, such as with genetic engineering. Nor should the reality of "irreducible complexity" be ignored. While presenting macroevolution as true, the schools should at least boldly own the fact that "since" it is true, irreducibly complex organisms and systems must have therefore evolved via punctuated equilibrium, and that this phenomenon happened many, many times. All the interconnected parts must have emerged fully developed (or at least developed enough to provide a beneficial function) in an instant. So what if that would make philosophical naturalism seemed far-fetched? These are science classes, not philosophy classes, and we need to be true to the empirical evidence, right? Finally, both the major disputes between various evolutionary hypotheses and the serious unanswered questions about some or all of these constructs should also be presented. After all, aren't we trying to inspire the students to move science forward?
I recall biology and life science curriculum up through high school to be mostly about the present-day functions of organisms and organs, life cycles, reproduction, and so forth. I hardly recall any teachings about mutating diseases. That belongs in higher education, it would seem. However, the reality of mutating diseases is in no way contradictory to supernaturalism, creationism, intelligent design, or irreducible complexity. In fact, mutating diseases fall right in line with many of their constructs. So, in theory, it would be entirely possible for a student to graduate from higher studies a creationist and still be effective at fighting mutating diseases.
So really, the latest hubbub seems to be pointless to me. And since I believe in separation of state and school, we really shouldn't need to spend so much time debating what should be taught in the schools. Send your own children to the schools you think best. Keep your hands off of my children.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I always welcome comments. Be aware that anything you write may be thoroughly analyzed and used in subsequent blog entries.