HOME
Message Board
CURRENT COLUMNS
- Editor's Corner
- Blogfest 2005
- Commentary
- Commentary Too
- Down The Middle
- Faulking Around
- Global Warning
- This guy walks into a bar...
- Investing 101
- Faulking Opinions
- Off The Rail
- Words
ARCHIVES
LINKS
CONTACT US
 | |||
Commentary Too - May 7, 2005 - Printable Version
- Giving Science a Wedgie
by Robin Buckallew
About a half century ago, there was a country that thought pretty highly of itself. In fact, it was downright cocky. It felt it had reason to be. After all, this country, which only less than 200 years before had cast out the British, defeating the mightiest army in the world with a rag-tag band of misfit soldiers, had now defeated the giant Germany, had showed Japan who was boss, and had let Russia see the full force of her strength and might. There was a swagger in the step, a brag in the voice, money in the pocket. Our girls were the prettiest, our parties were the wildest, our music really rocked. Our scientists, of course, were the smartest, the most clever, the best trained..Wait, what was that? There, up in the sky! Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's SPUTNIK!!! Seems somehow while we were at the sock hop, Russia had managed to beat us into space. Following the launch of Sputnik, Americans realized that they were behind the loop in science in nearly every way. Reevaluating the science education led them to one conclusion: certain subjects were being avoided or poorly taught because of the general aversion to the subject of evolution. Although today it is widely assumed that the laws banning the teaching of evolution ended with the Scopes trial in 1925, in reality that trial failed to make its hoped for date with the Supreme Court. It was thrown out in a lower appeals court on a technicality, leaving the law untested and on the books. Teachers continued to quietly avoid the subject, not wanting to stir up controversy. Now, America was in arrears on science, and scrambling to play catch up. The party was over. Without too much more ado, science education in general, and evolution in particular, were updated and added to the science curriculum of most high schools. Textbook companies that had been unobtrusively removing references to evolution in their science texts were now putting them back. America once again began to move ahead to the forefront of science, and once again took her place at the table with the other world intellectual leaders. Until yesterday.
Yesterday, May 5, 2005, evolution once again went on trial. The state of Kansas is conducting hearings to consider the altering of the science curriculum in the state high schools to include a theory of dubious scientific merit that has been dubbed "Intelligent Design" (ID). Proponents of ID say they aren't looking to remove evolution from the curriculum, they only want ID taught, and all the evidence for it presented. It is, they say, in the interest of balance and fair scientific inquiry. They also say their theory doesn't violate the Constitution, because there is no mention of God - only an anonymous "Designer". Many people who have little problem with evolution in the schools are being won over by what seems to be a reasonable argument for a fair hearing. But is it true?
Intelligent design theory has been around for centuries. In the century before Darwin, it was proposed by William Paley, a priest in the Anglican Church, in his text Natural Theology. It has come down to us through the last 200 years, largely intact, but with a few semantic changes the creationist community believes will make it more palatable to the student of science. The only real change made to the theory is the largely cosmetic one mentioned above - the substitution of God for Designer. A group called the Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture has performed this bit of cosmetic surgery, hoping this will be just the ticket to get into the classroom. They call it "The Wedge Strategy". Reading their website puts the lie to all their exhortations that this is merely an alternative scientific theory, and not about religion at all. Their specific goal, as stated is "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God". They state that their strategy is intended to function as a "wedge that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points". Their vision is nothing short of splitting the natural and physical sciences wide open, and putting the Bible in their place. Having suffered early defeats in Arkansas and Louisiana, they have now set their sights on Kansas. Kansas, only a few short years ago, voted out the last batch of creation scientists that had gotten onto the school board, in a resounding referendum in support of science. Now, with the sweep of so-called "moral values" across the heartland in 2004, the creationists have been restored to the majority, and have scheduled hearings on the subject of changing the school curriculum. Those hearings have begun. It has been announced that 85% of the testimony expected will be in support of the anti-evolution position. Scientists from around the world have renounced the hearings, and are boycotting them en masse. Meanwhile, the creationists have gathered to give them a wedgie.
To many moderates, intelligent design theory doesn't sound so bad. And if the evidence for evolution is as weak as it is claimed to be, the students in our science classes should know it, right? Besides, this is America. We believe in fair play and equal time here. But this is about as misleading as it gets. First of all, intelligent design has absolutely no scientific evidence in support of it. It is a theory that is scientifically untestable, and therefore is not appropriate for presentation in a science class. The Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture states on its website that it will conduct scientific research in support of ID. To date, that scientific research has not been forthcoming. There have been a few dense philosophical and mathematical treatises, filled with equations and quasi-scientific language that are impossible for the average layperson (and often the average scientist) to properly evaluate. The formulas sound like they are saying something, they look impressive, so they must be meaningful. I won't attempt to debunk these arguments here - I am not qualified to debunk such dense mathematical arguments. This has been done in a myriad of scientific papers and books, and I can suggest that you look for "Creationism's Trojan Horse" by Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross if you want to see a thorough discussion of this topic. I will just say this: for the past couple of decades, creationist writings have been sprinkled liberally with equations and scientific language that is incomprehensible to the uninitiated. This tactic has given their work a veneer of scientific respectability in the lay mind that it does not merit.
As for the argument about the weakness of the evidence for evolution, I believe the evidence stands for itself. There are few scientific theories of any merit or renown that have amassed the vast body of evidence that supports evolution. The theory of gravity has much less evidence to back it up, but I have not heard anybody calling for our students to be taught "how weak" the evidence is for gravity, or for allowing our children to float around weightless in the classroom because gravity is "only a theory". Frankly, I'd like to try it. It sounds like fun. Of course, that would make discipline in the classroom a little more difficult if children could just float right out of their desk anytime they wanted to. But, back to the evidence for evolution. There are few biologists or geologists who can look at the compiled evidence and deny the reality of evolution. A number of these scientists are devout Christians, who have no trouble incorporating evolution into their overall worldview. The Pope himself saw no trouble with evolution, stating that it does not conflict in any way with Biblical teachings. He looked at the evidence, and he accepted what he saw before him. No capital case ever heard has compiled such an impressive amount of evidence. In fact, if courts were required to amass this much evidence, no criminal would ever be convicted of anything. But still we hear from the creationists that there is no evidence. They don't deny our bits of evidence, they don't explain our bits of evidence, they simply ignore them.
Now, on to fair play. That's always a good argument stopper. You want to be fair, don't you? You want to tell both sides, don't you? What could be more American than fair play? But the myth of equal time is just that - a myth. There is no obligation to give equal amounts of time to covering theories which are not equal. If that doctrine were put in place, we would then have to give equal time to everyone who alleges their ideas as scientific. We would have to add astrology to all our astronomy classes. Numerology, phrenology, magnetism, ghosts, UFOs, all would need to be considered. Chemistry classes would need to make room for alchemy. Medical school would need to include classes on the four humors and bleeding as a treatment, not to mention laying on of hands and psychic surgery. Levitation would be proper subject matter for physical education class. The Holocaust deniers would get equal time in history classes. Typically, if the evidence for a theory is not up to the rigid standard of scientific inquiry, it is not given equal time in the classroom. Once it compiles a basis of evidence that makes it equal to other competing theories, then it will be taught. To give equal time to creationist theories in the classroom, whatever we call them or whatever kind of "designer" we posit, is to imply that the evidence supporting these theories is equivalent with the other theories we are teaching.
Now let's examine the other aspect of equal time. Is the time devoted to teaching evolution really overwhelming compared to that devoted to creationism? For most high school students, the time spent engaged in active learning about evolution is essentially nil. Many high school teachers, in order to eliminate controversy, simply avoid mentioning it. For those that do, it's usually only a short course in the high school biology curriculum that may last for a class session or two during one year of their schooling. We're talking about two or three hours of evolution. Compare that to the teachings of creation, which a devout Christian will hear at the church regularly, especially if they attend every week. The airwaves are filled with evangelism. In fact, nowadays a great many stations fulfill their public service obligation with religious programming. There are occasional shows on evolution on Discovery or PBS. But religious thought, religious language, religious observances are all around us. Even those who are not particularly religious have been exposed to many hours of religious thought and feeling through their peers, their televisions, their radios, and their communities. It is not harmful, it is not unpleasant, and I don't ask that it be ceased. I don't ask that I be allowed to come into the churches and teach evolution. I don't think we need equal time. I think we just need to have the things that we treasure and the things that we teach in their proper places, in order that we don't diminish the power or the beauty (or the science) of any of them.
So, what is the worst that could happen if the Kansas Board of Education allows ID into the science class? The wedge would be in. It would begin to tighten. Studies already show that the level of science knowledge in America is lagging seriously behind the rest of the world. Quick - what country tests out highest on scientific knowledge? Did you guess South Korea? Wow, you get the prize. Where does America test? About with Mexico, and other impoverished Third World nations. If the wedge strategy works, this won't get better. This will only get worse. The general level of animosity toward science in this country has been building for some time. Stem cell research, evolution, geology, history - all of these fields and more are being targeted. Scientists won't stop doing science, geologists won't stop doing geology, historians won't stop doing history - we'll just stop doing it here. There are many other countries where the atmosphere is not hostile to intellectual activity. The brain drain will be tremendous. The result will be an end to American leadership in the world. Tom DeLay and Bill Frist will no doubt call on God to save his followers. Perhaps he'll be there. Perhaps not. Meanwhile, keep your eye on Kansas. If they give science a wedgie, they're giving it to the entire country. Keep your eyes on your shorts.
UPDATE:
Last Friday, June 10, 2005, the three members of the Kansas Board of
Education who were hearing the arguments regarding evolution in the high
school science curriculum voted in favor of "teaching the criticisms of
evolution" in Kansas high schools. They stated that the scientific evidence
offered was overwhelmingly in favor of this position; however, the
scientific community nationwide had boycotted the hearings, and the majority
of the testimony given was by the "intelligent design" proponents. The
changes proposed to the Kansas standards were those favored by a minority of
the standards-writing committee. Overall, 43 states have heard arguments
debating the teaching of evolution as a "flawed theory", but most of the
states eventually have rejected the idea that the theory of evolution is
flawed, based on the compelling scientific evidence in support of the
embattled theory. The full 10-member Kansas Board of Education will review the recommendations later this week.
Voice your opinion on our message board (you don't have to sign up to post).