Comments

Antithesis · #1

Science and religion have seemingly always been at odds with each other. From the theories posed by Galileo to arguments regarding medical ethics today, science and religion have taken two opposing sides. The debate on whether or not creationism and intelligent design should be taught in schools is one such example. These theories with no basis in reality are being forced onto schools as a strategy of “teaching the controversy.” In this essay, it will be demonstrated that creationist thought runs not only counter to scientific theory, but also to the legal and educational standards of the public school system.

Many creationists and evolutionists alike argue for “teaching the controversy” simply for the reason of a fair and balanced education, but in concept this argument is flawed. For example, one would not support the teaching of holocaust revisionism or 9/11 conspiracy theories in school as “alternate viewpoints” because one cannot allow absurdity to enter the classroom (Scott 3). In perhaps the most well-known and celebrated rebuttal, Bobby Henderson, a 25-year old science student, wrote a letter to the Kansas State School Board (which had recently approved teaching “alternatives” to evolution) that he approved of the decision, but expressed concern over whether or not his views would be represented. He explained that he believed a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe in a mock religion and proceeded to send a crude diagram demonstrating the creation story of the new religion, conspicuously labeled “Pastafarianism.” Through this argument ad absurdum he proved that one cannot fairly teach all alternatives, so only the most religiously neutral viewpoint, evolution, is acceptable (Boxer 1). It is impossible to accommodate all viewpoints into a school curriculum, but it is logical to use the one viewpoint which has a fundamentally neutral stance on one’s personal beliefs.

Aside from that, theories such as creationism are simply inappropriate in an educational setting. First and foremost, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was meant to establish a purely secular government and, thus, a religiously neutral educational setting. By teaching creationist thought, the principle of separation between church and state is violated. In the case of Edwards v. Aguillard the Supreme Court reinforced this position, ruling that creationism was a religious concept and its teaching in schools is unconstitutional (NSTA 4). Even worse, if both ideas are presented, it blurs the line between fact and fiction. Much of what is considered legitimate in the eyes of creationists is very suspect and remains unproven, if not flat out false. If it is taught in a classroom, students are at a great disadvantage. Essentially, they are being fed lies disguised as truth. As such, they will be unable to determine the difference between scientific facts from pseudoscience (AAAS 4). In addition, they do not learn an adequate amount of information pertaining to facts. Time spent learning creationism and intelligent design is time spent not learning evolution. It is also time spent exposed to ideas in direct contrast to everything science is about, which will be addressed later. On a practical level, students will not be prepared for standardized tests, college entrance exams, and higher education, which all agree on the validity of evolutionary thought (Scott 2). The classroom is a place of learning truth, which means that creationism is out of the question.

Perhaps the easiest way to illustrate the fallacy of allowing these theories into schools is the fallacy in the theories themselves. First and foremost, the scientific consensus is that evolution is a fact and that the only debate about it is not whether or not it happens, but how it happens (AAAS 2). Intelligent design simply isn’t science at all. Essentially, intelligent design is the idea that there are complex aspects in nature which cannot be chalked up to coincidence and, thus, are the product of a “first cause,” which is the equivalent to a supreme being, which had the mental capacity to design everything. There have been no tests and there is no evidence supporting intelligent design. Neither is the question scientific in nature, but rather philosophical. As such, even if it were placed in scientific terms, the label of “theory” is a misnomer for intelligent design. Rather, it is better termed as a hypothesis, which is essentially a wild guess which has yet to be substantiated with facts. Once it has sufficient facts to support it, then it is a theory. Likewise, the layperson’s definition of “theory” does not apply to the scientific definition. In common terms, a theory is the same thing as a hypothesis or inference. In a scientific context, however, theories are simply ideas which are unified and supported by enough evidence not to suggest but rather to prove validity (AAAS 2). Creationism itself, the most common form being biblical creationism, runs counter to the scientific method as well. Science is about explaining the world in purely empirical terms without resorting to mysticism or superstition. Under scientific theory, if you can tell it’s there, you can explain how and why it exists. (Scott 2) Creationism is a fundamentally flawed perversion of the scientific process. First, creationism uses a presupposed assumption that there was an intelligent designer involved, which is essentially giving a hypothesis the validity of a fact, the worst thing that any scientist can do and an action which would automatically discredit any theory in any scientific community. It is not an issue of science, but of religion and is something which one must remain agnostic towards in regards to scientific process. Religious conviction is instead a matter of personal choice, but is not applicable to the scientific process. Second, creationist thinkers work selectively by piecing together a patchwork of ideas, both proven and unproven, to support their position while ignoring that which runs contrary. This cherry picking leaves much to be desired when the unified theories based upon the pre-screened data are placed up to critical review. Third, and perhaps most important, creationism does not have the intellectual honesty of the scientific process. The goal of science is to constantly amend theories based on the discovery and verification of new evidence. As such, scientific thought improves over time. Creationism has the goal of proving a presupposed notion which is simply identified as fact. There is no critical review within creationist circles and no new hypotheses, because the one hypothesis they have is given the validity of a scientific law and cannot be deviated from (NSTA 3-4). Essentially, creationism and intelligent design cannot be taught in science classes simply because they do not qualify as science in any sense of the word.

The two “theories” of creationism and intelligent design are completely inappropriate in the classroom. They do not qualify as science, are not confirmed, defeat the purpose of the separation between church and state, create an unfair bias in favor of Christianity, and do not foster intellectual honesty. They are not acceptable “alternatives” to evolution, and they do not fulfill the basic goal of education as an institution which encourages critical thinking and independent reasoning. If one wishes to follow their own religious beliefs then that’s fine because it’s their business, but they have neither the authority nor the right to bring their beliefs into the public realm by pushing it as an equal to scientific fact.

Works Cited

American Academy for the Advancement of Science. “Intelligent Design is Unscientific.” World Religions. 2006. Opposing Viewpoints Series. OpposingViewpointsResourceCenter. Gale Group Databases. ClarkstownHigh School South Lib, NY. 15 May 2007. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?vrsn=230&slb=SU&locID=win16990rpa&srchtp=basi c&c=1&ste=17&tbst=ts_basic&tab=1&txb=Intelligent+D esign+is+unscientific&docNum=X3010438219&fail=1&bC onts=1

Boxer, Sarah. “But is there Intelligent Spaghetti Out There?” The New York Times. 29 August 2005. The New York Times. 16 May 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/29/arts/design/29mons.html?ex=1179460800&en=6262e34a96254bc3&ei=5 070

Eugenie Scott, interviewed by Leo Lynn. “Creationism Should Not Be Included in Science Curricula.” Education. 2000. Opposing Viewpoints Series. Opposing ViewpointsResourceCenter. Gale Group Databases. ClarkstownHigh School South Lib, NY. 15 May 2007. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?vrsn=230&slb=SU&locID=win16990rpa&srchtp=basi c&c=4&ste=17&tbst=ts_basic&tab=1&txb=Creationism&d ocNum=X3010129231&fail=0&bConts=79

National Science Teachers Association. “Creationism Should Be Excluded from Science Courses.” Education. Opposing Viewpoints Series. Opposing ViewpointsResourceCenter. Gale Group Databases. ClarkstownHigh School South Lib, NY. 15 May 2007. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?vrsn=230&slb=SU&locID=win16990rpa&srchtp=basi c&c=1&ste=17&tbst=ts_basic&tab=1&txb=Creationism+s hould+be+excluded&docNum=X3010129260&fail=1&bConts =1

hkbajwa · 05-26-2007, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmeyers1944

What I find offensive is that many (if not most) people who believe in evolution, do so to deny the existence of God. I would rather be formed from the dust of the earth, by God, than descend from apes by total accident of a series of events that began by tiny living things wiggling in the ooze.

Well i doubt anybody leans on the theory of evolution to deny the existence of God. Generally that type of scepticism comes from other sources like your parents, upbringing, life circumstances or perhaps bad experiences with organized religion.

Evolution is never used as "proof" of the absence of God, quite simply because it is NOT a proof of any such thing. It is merely a proof that religious dogma is in all likelihood incorrect. So, as mentioned before, evolution challenges the righteousness and accuracy of religious doctrine, not of the existence of God.

Mind you, to deny religious doctrine is NOT to deny God. Though you will probably not be able to find any clergyman who would agree with that. Since their religious doctrine is to them "proof" of god's existence, to deny is considered tantamount to denying God. Whereas that is not the case.

Anyhow you have not yet explained to me why the theory of evolution cannot be the process by which God created man.

I read of an interesting experiment undertaken once where a scientist created basic proteins ( the building blocks of life) under controlled circumstances from the right combination of earthen chemicals and atmospheric conditions.

This particular experiment actually does not even invalidate the biblical reference to man being created from clay. Mankind's genesis was when the first proteins were created from the right mix of earth and atmospherc conditions. Only mankind's genesis was not in his final form, but rather in the form of the first proteins that laid the foundation for all life, from which mankind was derived through millions of years of evolution.

And there ya go. In this particular interpretation ONLY the concept that man was created as a complete unit is challenged. In fact this is the only aspect of religious doctrine that evolution challenges.

I find it to make more sense that the clergy in Darwin's time felt personally offended and decided to term his theory heresy.. whereas it actually is not.

Antithesis · 05-26-2007, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmeyers1944

What I find offensive is that many (if not most) people who believe in evolution, do so to deny the existence of God. I would rather be formed from the dust of the earth, by God, than descend from apes by total accident of a series of events that began by tiny living things wiggling in the ooze.

Frankly, I find it to be very empowering. Each and every organism on earth is here because we are in a very lucky spot in the universe. Air, water, a suitable climate, and what's more, each human has completely defied the odds by actually existing as a sentient being. Compared to the sheer number of lifeforms, we won the statistical lottery by being born as humans.

Though it was by no means accidental. All of it was a product of many millions of years of gradual sculpting, like a block of clay being molded into the Venus de Milo.

And I never denied evolution. Neither do many religious figures. Even the Vatican admitted that it was a good idea in 1950 and stands by the claim. The pope today seems just as pious as anybody before 1950. According to John Paul II...

Quote:

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies -- which was neither planned nor sought -- constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."

He seemed faithful enough to me.

baloney_detector · 05-26-2007, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmeyers1944

I would rather be formed from the dust of the earth, by God, than descend from apes by total accident of a series of events that began by tiny living things wiggling in the ooze.

Well, "when I (like Darwin) view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Cambrian [geological] system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled."

(Quoted From "The Origin of Species")

Antithesis · 05-27-2007, 09:14 AM

Correction: John Paull II isn't the current pope. Just a brain fart, I suppose.

Still, he supported evolution, and Benedict XIV continues John Paul II's legacy by admitting to the near certain factuality of evolution while not taking it as a diminishment of faith. After all, does it matter more how we got here than that we are here?

Mrs. CJ Parker · 09-26-2008, 02:59 PM

Define "Intelligent Design" without using any reference to diety. Therein lies the problem.