I just finished watching a news section that was on the Evening news from Channel 4 (based in the U.K.). It was discussing a new decision in the American courts that "Intelligent Design" was not science and therefore could not be allowed in the classroom. I am little informed about the whole politically, culturally and religiously charged debate happening in the U.S. and I'm not sure the exact changes to the curriculum that were being proposed by the Dover School board, but I have been extremely surprised by the way that the issue has been reported.
I guess I should first say where I'm coming from, I'm not entirely sure, and I wouldn't stake my life on it, but it seems to me that macro-evolution is the best theory that we have at the moment to explain the formation of the universe and life on Earth. It's not a perfect theory, but it's the best we have at the moment. I'm surprised though that people feel they are defending science by silencing any voices that would question darwinianism. It seems to me that through out western history it has been only through the testing and questioning of theories that we have been able to make progress in our understanding. It really seems that the tables have turned, it used to be that the authorities had it in for scientists like Galileo and Darwin and tried to silence their views, not because of scientific reasons but because it shook their world view, now it seems the same is happening at people who would raise issues with current evolutionary theory. It is not in the spirit of science to try and silence dissenting voices. Instead, scientists need to take any proposition and deal with it on a scientific basis, not through a heated argument including calling of names. Let us not be so attached to our scientific theories that we aren't free to question them, if we hadn't questioned our previously held theories we would still believe that light was simply made of particles and that the atom looked like a plum pudding.
When people point to weaknesses in evolutionary theory (e.g. what intelligent design proponents call irreducible complexity) we should not take that as an attack that needs a reactionary and political response, we should instead take the challenge so that we can relook at the theory and improve it if necessary. The way many have been approaching this issue in the name of science, by trying to silence opposing views, seems scarily similar to the Christian Church of pre-Reformation Europe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Oh my goodness--this story blew up over here sometime late this summer, and I initially tried to stay on top of it but just got overwhelmed after about a month. It's become one of those really polarizing and overdiscussed topics like abortion and gay rights. I'm from a similar position on the topic as you, and I'm kind of frustrated by the vicious circle perpetuated by the scientific community (you can't be taken seriously unless you've been published in serious scientific journals, and you can't be published in serious scientific journals until you've been taken seriously). The thing that makes me hesitant about the insistence on teaching ID is that the involvement of God in the evolutionary process is not scientifically testable, a primary element of a scientific theory. But I'm really annoyed by the attempt by the scientific community to systematically quash any attempt to challenge its hegemony over contemporary thought.
You said you were extremely surprised by the coverage you saw, but you don't say why. I'm assuming they treat ID as bunk that no thinking person would actually believe, but maybe I'm wrong. I'd be interested to find out.
I think part of the reason ID is so vehemently opposed in wider scientific circles is because it is seen by them (and many people in the broader public) as a way to smuggle in creationism through the back door under the guise of "respectable" science. This usually evokes images of Bible-thumping anti-intellectual fundamentalists and the Scopes trial as well as taps into fears of encroaching theocracy and violating separation of church and state. When a news story gives a gloss of ID, it usually mentions it in connection with conservative Christianity, but very rarely do they mention that the movement includes several varities of Christians, Jews, and even agnostics.
I'm not particularly gung-ho about ID either, and I agree with you, Michael, that macro-evolution seems like the best theory we've got right now. I also agree that the scientific community is very eager to maintain its position of power and authority at least in American life, and this manifests itself sometimes in a desire to present a unified voice that really quashes discussion and dissent. Hopefully these comments can help in the discussion.
Post a Comment