Here’s a question I hope to generate some discussion on if anyone would like to comment.
I think it is obvious that the motivation for supporting this Bill is purely religiously based, and despite the exclusion of certain language in order to avoid a direct run in with the Establishment Clause, I think a good case can be made to show that the only purpose for this Bill is religious and that it is basically designed to aid Biblical Literalists in proselytizing on public schools in order to convert students to their religious point of view. (Got to save them from all that damning atheistic evolution ya-know.) Of course this would violate the “lemon test” and the Establishment Clause, and would ultimately kill the Bill.
In order to have any chance of avoiding this, proponents of Buttars Bill have to show some legitimate secular purpose for the Bill. But what legitimate secular purpose is served by this Bill? What legitimate secular purpose is served by creating doubt in evolution? Beyond the possible argument that it helps students to somehow think more critically, I can’t think of one. But I’m open to hearing other ideas.
10 comments:
It is an indisputable fact that the theory of evolution is unsatisfactory, even to evolutionists. To begin with, there are several theories (Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, the neo-Darwinian synthesis, punctuated equilibrium, claddistics, etc.). These are mutually incompatible, and they have been suggested by various evolutionists to account for some of the failures of the others to satisfactorily explain various "holes" in the evidence for evolution.
This scientific ferment is rigorously ignored in the teaching of "evolution" at the high school and even college level. But it is important. If Steven Jay Gould thinks that the neo-Darwinian synthesis (gradualism) is so defective that he had to come up with an alternative theory (punctuated equilibrium), then students are entitled to know that. They are entitled to know that the most eminent paleontologist of his generation finds a key aspect of evolutionism inadequate to explain the fossil record.
This "entitlement" has nothing whatever to do with religion, either generic or particular. It has to do with a complete education. As I understand the Buttars Bill, all it would do is assure that students be told that there are serious questions about the adequacy of any of the "scientific" theories to explain observed realities. It does not require anything about intelligent design or any religious theory of creation.
Note that I am not defending the Buttars Bill. But it is clear to me that there is a valid, non-religious, rationale for the Bill.
Gordon,
Thanks for the comment.
I see what you’re saying, and I agree with you in that students should be taught about disputes that evolutionists are having between things like ‘gradualism’ and Gould’s ‘punctuated equilibrium’, but these are disputes on the details of how evolution works on a macroevolution scale, not over the veracity of evolution itself. Buttars Bill is deliberately vague on this; it requires the school board to question the veracity of the theory of evolution altogether (at least for human macroevolution), not just to expose students to disputes within evolutionary theory.
And since the only other theories in the greater discussion are Creationism/ID variations, does legislation that questions the veracity of evolution as an overarching theory serve a legitimate secular purpose if the only alternative is religious?
Even so, why does science need the help of legislation to help it sort out the answers to these questions?
At the edge of any scientific discipline, there are places where scientists disagree. If there weren't, there wouldn't be any science. Science is a system for sorting these disagreements out in ways that reliably sort fact from fiction.
Getting to the point where students can understand these disagreements usually takes years of study. That's what graduate students do, typically, not something you'd expect undergrads or high school students to participate in.
If legislation to ensure students are exposed to various questions on the forefront of scientific questions is necessary, why are we limiting it to biology? Why not geology, computer science, physics, and chemsitry as well? Why not ensure that students students are exposed to category theory in mathematics and the controversy surrounding whether it's helpful or not?
The point is that Sen Buttars isn't interested in any of these. He's not interested in promoting discussion fo Darwinisn vs. neo-darwinism or any other legitimate scientific discourse. He's interested in fringe theories with no predictive value and little or no evidence to support them.
What amazes me is the looney notion by non-scientists, the somehow "science" has an agenda or a vested interest. Science is about unbiased inquiry and I see no evidence to cast doubt on that assertion. If a theory has evidence and predictive value, then it will gain supporters in the scientific community over time. If it doesn't then we can rest assured that it is not a valid theory. Science is a marketplace of ideas where those with the best ability to predict outcomes win. In short, science has gotten along quite nicely without helpful interventions from the legislature and Buttars and his friends ought to leave it alone.
There is no legitimate secular purpose to this. Kids at this age, as Judge Jones pointed out, won't be learning critical thinking skills, but will be pursuaded that evolution is wrong by Buttar's "teach the controversy" approach.
And I have not read Ken Miller's finding Darwin's God book, just the Brown articles about him. My friends who took his class said he was an amazing instructor. It is also important to note that Darwin himself was a religious man and didn't see a conflict, so why do all these evangelicals have to create one?
Phil:
I think the point is that public education is not "science." It is indoctrination. Maybe that's all it can be, but as long as it is, it is going to be subject to political influences. (Parenthetically, this debate brings up what is, for me, the most salient advantage of school choice: that parents can choose the kind of indoctrination they want for their children, in all kinds of areas, from sex education to evolution.)
I also think you are a bit naive about science and "vested interests." Of course scientists have vested interests, in research grants if nothing else. That's one reason the Dawkins-Gould debate was so bitter, and it is why credentialed scientists who dispute the adequacy of the Darwinian model can't get tenure.
To the twin:
It doesn't seem to me that the gradualism v. punctuated equilibrium debate is about details within the Darwinian consensus. Of course Gould and Dawkins both rejected creationism, but Gould was questioning a central tenet of Darwinism (natura non facit saltem), as Thomas Huxley recognized as far back as Darwin's day. Goldschmidt's "hopeful monsters" are very like the product that might stem from intelligent design. Dawkins (and others) recognized that fact, even if Gould was unwilling to admit it, and they subjected Goldschmidt to intense vilification in defense of their "vested interest."
g
Travis (and Gordon),
I agree with you that “Science is advanced when questions are asked about it”, but probably in a different sense than you. Unlike what I hear from the Creationism/ID crowd, evolutionary theory isn’t set in stone. From reading up on the history of it, it is actually a very dynamic theory. As more and more evidence comes in it is challenged, modified, and refined, thus making it a great theory to teach.
But challenging evolution with religiously based theories that are designed to conform to certain theological scruples isn’t really challenging science; it’s actually an attempt to suppress it. If some high school kid is taught that the human eyeball is “irreducibly complex”, that nature’s evolution just couldn’t do that, that some intelligent designer was required in order for it to be, what will that kid do if he was the one who was going to ask the challenging questions that would answer how nature in its simplicity actually did develop the eyeball. So much for asking questions, as my pastor, who is a young earth creationist, likes to say, “If the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.”
P.S. Gordon – If you’re going to pull out dead languages on me please don’t use Latin, I didn’t study Latin, use Greek instead (I think the letters are cool). BTW, you misspelled saltem, it saltum.
Didymus, the twin (but my friends just call me Didy)
Travis,
As I have mentioned in previous posts and comments, I know that Creationism/ID isn’t mentioned or even required in the Bill. I was merely mentioning them in the above comment to make a small point about questioning evolution to develop critical thinking. To simplify and restate my point for clarification – I think trying to question evolution with religious based theories doesn’t promote critical thinking, it actually suppress’ it.
But just because this Bill doesn’t mention Creationism/ID doesn’t mean it isn’t there. For example, do you realize that if a student were to ask his teacher who those scientists are that disagree with human evolution that the teacher wouldn’t be able to give their names without instantly bring Creationism/ID into the classroom. That’s because the only alternative to evolution that is under discussion here is Creationism/ID theories.
(Know I know we are just going to have to agree to disagree over whether ID is science or not, but so far the courts have deemed it not science.)
Didy:
Oh, dear! Now the courts are going to determine what is science.
If I were a scientist, that would worry me more than anything.
g
Gordon,
Oh, I don't think the courts will determine science (at least I hope they don't). But let's take Dover for example, ID scientists had a fantastic opportunity to show all the evidence they wanted to the judge that what they were saying was science, that their theory could hold their own in opposition to evolution, that when put to the quick they could stand tall. But they resoundingly failed. I think the Judge called it correctly, the evidence for ID as science, as opposed to just a religious based philosophy, is still wanting.
But the fact that a court has deemed ID not science prevents it from being used as a justification for Buttars Bill having a legitimate secular purpose. It can’t be used as an example of a theory that scientists aren’t agreeing on, because if it was the Bill would be shown to have a religious purpose.
(1) The Buttars Bill is a ham-handed attempt to regulate what is taught in biology and general science classes in public schools, and is so vague that no one will know how to enforce it, and since it will be attacked on the grounds of limiting the free speech of teachers, will be struck down as void because of that vagueness.
(2) The Buttars Bill is so poorly justified in its text that, in any court challenge, the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church & State will ask the court to examine the legislative history, which will be full of statements indicating a religious motivation and purpose for the bill. While several more recent decisions of the US Supreme Court have tried to bury the Lemon v, Kurtzman test, including its "secular purpose" leg, it keeps getting resurrected, especially in the evolution cases, where neutral statements that did not include the word "God" (and thus are unlike the Pledge of Allegiance) were held by Federal judges to be invalidated PURELY because the school boards that issued them had "religious" intent. This is the ONLY place in the law where psychoanalyzing legislative bodies is allowed to intrude into the analysis of the constitutionality of a law. No one challenges laws against child rape because it offends the religious-based morality of legislators, but suddenly a different standard gets pulled out of the closet when atheists want to shoot down any criticism of Darwinism.
(3) The mixing together of "Creationism" and "intelligent design" manifests either gross ignorance or plain dishonesty. "Creationism" as widely understood starts from the premise that a simplistic reading of Genesis 1 and 2 is determinative of the course of physical creation of the earth and biosphere, including a very short time period (6 days or 6,000 years) which is inconsistent with basic geology, astronomy and physics. "Intelligent Design" is a collection of critiques of the most extreme form of Darwinism, that is, of the claim that ALL of the diversity of living things observable in the world today was caused SOLELY by random mutations in reproductive DNA, which in turn caused differential survival of the mutated members of a species, causing the entire species to be modified, with successive such random steps creating new species, genera, and phyla. The critiques included in "Intelligent Design" do NOT appeal to the authority of the Bible or any other religious authority. Instead, they appeal to scientific knowledge and reason. They are just as scientific as the criticisms of theories in medicine, geology, and physics.
(4) There are many people, including scientists, who believe that "evolution" occurred--in terms of development and change of species over time--but they also believe that the process of mutation was either guided at the time, or that it was in some way fixed at the beginning of the process. In fact, biologist Kenneth Miller, who strongly supports evolution, explains that he is in the latter group. He doesn't believe in Darwinism strongly enough for militant atheists like Richard Dawkins, however, who has publicly criticized Miller as being either a hypocrite or stupid for thinking that religion and Darwinisms can be consistent.
(5) The SECULAR purpose for ensuring the ability of students and teachers to criticize Darwinism in public school science classes is that people like Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett, and many individual science teachers, believe that it is the mission of public school science classes to indoctrinate students (over the objection of their parents) in Dawkins' view, that evolution necessarily excludes any and all religious beliefs from reality. That is an argument ABOUT RELIGION, and teachers should not be allowed to ridicule or coerce students into any particular view about religion. Preserving the religious neutrality of the science classroom is a SECULAR PURPOSE, the same secular purpose that the Federal courts have claimed was THEIR basis for censoring school board statements pointing out that Darwinism is no more true or untrue than any other scientific theory (e.g. relativity, plate tectonics, the Big Bang), and is fair game for reasoned criticism. If a school board or state legislature wants to make that point in state or district policy, it should just say so, and publish that to students and teachers outside of class time.
(6) The problem with Darwinism is that it really has NO practical applications. What are you supposed to DO with it? Other scientific theories allow predictions to be made and tested, and the development of technologies. Since Darwinism says that the changes that can occur in living things are totally random, it cannot make predictions about the course evolution will take. As Stephen Jay Gould said, if you rewound evolution and started over, there is no reason to think it would play out the same way twice. The result is that the desire to show some practical use for Darwinism results in all sorts of sociological nonsense, such as the eugenics movement and racism up to World War II (including in the textbook that Clarence Darrow defended in the Scopes trial), and evolutionary psychology now, which are totally unanchored to any reality of actual genes controlling behavior.
(7) In the classroom, the goal is to get the student to adopt Darwinism as his mantra, so that instead of saying "Aren't God's creations intricate and fascinating?" he will say "Aren't evolution's creations intricate and fascinating?" No one teaches students--all the way into grad school--to try to parse out the precise Darwinian steps that could have produced any feature of a living thing. They simply are taught to give evolution the credit, even though it provides no actual information about the subject of study, since, after all, the result is totally random, and the living thing under study could have been different in a myriad of different ways. The little "just so stories" that scientists tell in which they imagine why a particular characteristic would have given a survival advantage are simply myths, since they have no way of determining when the change happened, what the prior species was like, what the exact environment was that "selected" that particular mutation as superior, or how many different mutation/selection events took place to create the observed phenomenon.
Post a Comment