(no subject)
Sep. 26th, 2005 08:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bobcatmoranWell, there's a trial going on right now in Pennsylvania over whether or not intelligent design should be part of a school district's curriculm.
Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover School District, et al. is probably going to prove to be pretty darn important.
A disclaimer: I am not coming from an unbiased viewpoint by any means. I am a biology major, with an emphasis in ecology. My religious background did not include any "creation" story (I am not, BTW, an atheist. I do consider myself to be somewhat religious, it's just that the religion happens to be Buddhism). I have never believed in any sort of supreme creator of the universe, be it the Judeo-Christian God or a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
First off, here's the point of controversy: The Dover Area School District has required teachers of the district's ninth grade biology class to read a statement which includes the following (this is taken off of the initial filed complaint, courtesy of the US Court of the Middle District of Pennsylvania):
"Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unify a broad range of observations.
"Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind."
Okay, first, what is right with this statement: Darwin's theory is a theory. This is true. And a theory in science is a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of explanations. In other words, "This is the simplest, most logical explanation, based on observation and experimentation." What they mean by "gaps" is arguable. I'll come back to that a bit later. And, of course, an open mind is always a good thing to have whenever reviewing any scientific evidence. While reading any study, you should be asking yourself, "were their methods sound? Do their conclusions make sense? Would someone else be able to repeat this experiment?" A theory is not a fact. This is true, also.
However. However, however, however. There are *so* many "howevers" here. Like I said, a scientific theory is basically the best testable explanation anyone's come up with. That's a key word there, "testable." You see, in order for a theory to be accepted by the scientific community, it has to be supported by numerous observations and experiments, and each one has to be repeatable. That is, if you do an experiment, I have to be able to follow your methodology and come up with the same or very similar results. Darwinian evolution has undergone such tests. There have been literally hundreds of studies showing time and again that natural selection works. Organisms can change over time; they can evolve. (for a good read on one of the most thorough and famous studies on this--done on the finches of the Galapagos--read The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner. It's pretty accessible to anyone with even a high school biology background.)
But how would one do an experiment to determine that some Supreme Being created life? Is there a scientifically valid way of testing this hypothesis? Well, no, quite frankly. And if you can't test it somehow, it's not really science, and it doesn't belong in a science classroom.
Even going by the claim of many intelligent design proponents that the "Intelligent Designer" can be anything from God Almighty to E.T. (I'll just pretend for now that they're not trying to foist Creationism into a public school curriculum, because as we all know, that is most likely against the separation of church and state), it honestly doesn't matter who the Designer is. It can be a Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care. It's still not science. If we're not going around to chemistry classes and asking them to analyze Hamlet, then we shouldn't be going into science classrooms and teaching not-science.
I think it's the word "theory" which gets these people all excited. "Look!" they say. "It's just a theory!" Well, yes, but so's the Atomic Theory and the Theory of Gravitation. If you're going to be reading statements like the one quoted above in biology classrooms, then you ought to be going into chemistry classrooms and requiring teachers to read something like this:
"The Atomic Theory is a theory, and as such, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unify a broad range of observations.
"The theory of the Four Elements (air, earth, fire, and water) is an explanation of how different materials can combine and react with one another. This differs from the Atomic Theory. The reference book [insert name of some text here] is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what the Four Elements actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind."
After all, look at those crazy chemists and physicists. That theory has holes in it like mad! Why, they can't even tell us where electrons are. They just say, "Oh, they're likely to be in this area, somewhere, and we can never find out exactly where they are normally, because by observing them, we affect the way they behave." They say there are all these quark things, but no one's ever even observed some of them. No one's ever seen a neutrino, yet they insist on their existence. Good heavens, why are we teaching our children such crazy ideas?
But you don't hear court challenges to the Atomic Theory, now, do you?
I'm tempted to go on about this. I could, believe me. Words cannot describe how MAD I get whenever I hear about intelligent design being taught in science classrooms of public schools. Note that I specified "science classrooms." If people wish to discuss this in, say, a Humanities course, I have no problem with this. But it is not science and never will be.
In short, anything where "A wizard did it" can be considered a valid answer should not be taught as part of a science curriculum.
Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover School District, et al. is probably going to prove to be pretty darn important.
A disclaimer: I am not coming from an unbiased viewpoint by any means. I am a biology major, with an emphasis in ecology. My religious background did not include any "creation" story (I am not, BTW, an atheist. I do consider myself to be somewhat religious, it's just that the religion happens to be Buddhism). I have never believed in any sort of supreme creator of the universe, be it the Judeo-Christian God or a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
First off, here's the point of controversy: The Dover Area School District has required teachers of the district's ninth grade biology class to read a statement which includes the following (this is taken off of the initial filed complaint, courtesy of the US Court of the Middle District of Pennsylvania):
"Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unify a broad range of observations.
"Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind."
Okay, first, what is right with this statement: Darwin's theory is a theory. This is true. And a theory in science is a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of explanations. In other words, "This is the simplest, most logical explanation, based on observation and experimentation." What they mean by "gaps" is arguable. I'll come back to that a bit later. And, of course, an open mind is always a good thing to have whenever reviewing any scientific evidence. While reading any study, you should be asking yourself, "were their methods sound? Do their conclusions make sense? Would someone else be able to repeat this experiment?" A theory is not a fact. This is true, also.
However. However, however, however. There are *so* many "howevers" here. Like I said, a scientific theory is basically the best testable explanation anyone's come up with. That's a key word there, "testable." You see, in order for a theory to be accepted by the scientific community, it has to be supported by numerous observations and experiments, and each one has to be repeatable. That is, if you do an experiment, I have to be able to follow your methodology and come up with the same or very similar results. Darwinian evolution has undergone such tests. There have been literally hundreds of studies showing time and again that natural selection works. Organisms can change over time; they can evolve. (for a good read on one of the most thorough and famous studies on this--done on the finches of the Galapagos--read The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner. It's pretty accessible to anyone with even a high school biology background.)
But how would one do an experiment to determine that some Supreme Being created life? Is there a scientifically valid way of testing this hypothesis? Well, no, quite frankly. And if you can't test it somehow, it's not really science, and it doesn't belong in a science classroom.
Even going by the claim of many intelligent design proponents that the "Intelligent Designer" can be anything from God Almighty to E.T. (I'll just pretend for now that they're not trying to foist Creationism into a public school curriculum, because as we all know, that is most likely against the separation of church and state), it honestly doesn't matter who the Designer is. It can be a Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care. It's still not science. If we're not going around to chemistry classes and asking them to analyze Hamlet, then we shouldn't be going into science classrooms and teaching not-science.
I think it's the word "theory" which gets these people all excited. "Look!" they say. "It's just a theory!" Well, yes, but so's the Atomic Theory and the Theory of Gravitation. If you're going to be reading statements like the one quoted above in biology classrooms, then you ought to be going into chemistry classrooms and requiring teachers to read something like this:
"The Atomic Theory is a theory, and as such, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unify a broad range of observations.
"The theory of the Four Elements (air, earth, fire, and water) is an explanation of how different materials can combine and react with one another. This differs from the Atomic Theory. The reference book [insert name of some text here] is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what the Four Elements actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind."
After all, look at those crazy chemists and physicists. That theory has holes in it like mad! Why, they can't even tell us where electrons are. They just say, "Oh, they're likely to be in this area, somewhere, and we can never find out exactly where they are normally, because by observing them, we affect the way they behave." They say there are all these quark things, but no one's ever even observed some of them. No one's ever seen a neutrino, yet they insist on their existence. Good heavens, why are we teaching our children such crazy ideas?
But you don't hear court challenges to the Atomic Theory, now, do you?
I'm tempted to go on about this. I could, believe me. Words cannot describe how MAD I get whenever I hear about intelligent design being taught in science classrooms of public schools. Note that I specified "science classrooms." If people wish to discuss this in, say, a Humanities course, I have no problem with this. But it is not science and never will be.
In short, anything where "A wizard did it" can be considered a valid answer should not be taught as part of a science curriculum.
