One side can be wrong: 'Intelligent design' in classrooms would have disastrous consequences

Guardian UK ^ | September 1, 2005 | Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne

[stremba]

Good point. Taken to extremes, QM says that there are things that are inherently impossible for God to predict. That certainly seems to me to be more threatening on a theological basis than the notion that maybe God didn't create everything in a six day time frame, but rather used a process and took longer.

[stremba]

Then why no "controversy" about geology, stellar dynamics, plate techtonics, or nuclear decay? After all, one person in one lifetime cannot observe stars forming, rock layers forming, continents moving from one place to another or the decay of half of a sample of radioactive material whose half life is greater than 100 years or so. Why is evolution singled out on this basis?

[stremba]

Actually, I am beginning to favor teaching evolution, creationism, and ID PROPERLY in the science classroom. Teach the scientific theory of evolution presenting the voluminous amount of evidence that supports it. Teach that creationism is not science because science cannot include any supernatural, and therefore untestable, phenomenon, and then teach that ID is really just creationism in disguise to get around that pesky First Ammendment and is no more scientific than creationism. Of course, that's probably not what creationists/ID'ers have in mind when they shout "Teach both sides!"

[TChris]

The call for balance, by the way, was always tempered by the maxim, "When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly half way between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong."

Of course, the possibility that it's your side that's the wrong one is entirely out of the question. ;-)

[stremba]

I for one would have no problem with people believing whatever they want. If someone's religious belief is that God created everything in six days, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, then that's their right. However, it is the creationists that have made this into a political issue. The increasing association in the public mind between creationism and conservatism is potentially dangerous to conservatism. Please spare me any polls that suggest that the majority of people are creationists. There are many people who are religious and believe that God created the universe in six days but would oppose teaching such religious concepts in schools or otherwise politicizing their religious beliefs. Don't think for one second that the Democrats won't use this against us, labelling Republicans as "pig-ignorant idiots who want to turn the US into a theocracy." Don't think for a second that such attacks would not be effective among the general public.

[HitmanLV]

I agree with you.

[stremba]

We don't have proof of what the moon in bulk is made of. We have proof that there are a few small pieces of material that were removed from the moon by astronauts that turned out to be rock. The rest could very well be green cheese. We have made a completely and utterly unjustified extrapolation based on incomplete evidence. There is no proof that the ENTIRE moon is made of rocks. In fact, the rocks were probably fakes planted on the moon by the evil atheistic "moon rockers" to bolster their failing "moon is made of rock" theory. Any of this starting to sound familiar?

[PatrickHenry]

There is no proof that the ENTIRE moon is made of rocks.

Teach the controversy!

[Rippin]

Then why no "controversy" about geology, stellar dynamics, plate techtonics, or nuclear decay? After all, one person in one lifetime cannot observe stars forming, rock layers forming, continents moving from one place to another or the decay of half of a sample of radioactive material whose half life is greater than 100 years or so. Why is evolution singled out on this basis?

To the average bear, if you can observe a continent moving 1 inch in year and you project that it moved 5 million inches in 5 million years it is viewed as a straight line projection.

If the average bear sees dirt layed down in a rainstorm over an existing soil he can see a layer form in one day. It is easy for him to believe that more and harder layers could be formed over millions of years.

But if you see the frequency of peppered moths increase in a population and project that the exact same process (evolution) turned mollusks into men he just doesn't see the straight line. Thus he says he wants more evidence, he wants to see something similar.

Note my only point here is to try to clarify that the line between peppered moth 'evolution' and vertibrate from sea slime evolution is not completely arbitrary. I can't prove macro-evolution didn't happen but I'm trying to make the case that differentiation between macro and micro evolution is not completely arbitrary.

[Vive ut Vivas]

I have never understood why TOE excites emotions, particularly among Christians, in a way that, say, quantum mechanics does not; maybe because everyone thinks they understand TOE, and you don't need all the maths : ). But quantum mechanics is every bit as 'threatening' (if that's how you choose to regard it) to religious beliefs as is TOE--or as irrelevant to religious beliefs as TOE, if that is how you choose (as I do) to view it.

IAWTC. I think you have hit a particularly good point there, that everyone thinks they undertand evolution. It's not a difficult concept, but in my experience anyone who is anti-evolution because it's "not science" has misrepresented the theory; however, there's nothing that can be done for those who think science is heresy anyway.

[SeaLion]

however, there's nothing that can be done for those who think science is heresy anyway.

Bingo--I think your point is right on the money here.

Science does not start with an unchallengeable doctrine, it commences instead with careful observation of the natural world, frames a hypothesis that seems to best explain those observations, determines what may be further predicted by that hypothesis, and then goes on to test that hypothesis against further observations (derived, where appropriate, from experimentation). If these further observations do not match the predictions of the hypothesis, then that hypothesis is amended or abandoned as appropriate. This is why the history of science is littered with abandoned hypotheses--but this is part of what doing science means, the errors in science are corrected by its own methodolgy. Dalton's atomic theory was a major step forward in the early 1800's, the best explanation up to that time for the behaviour of matter--but it wasn't the last word by any means, we know vastly more know about the behavior of atomic particles than Dalton ever could, but it was scientists, not churchmen, who built on his work, corrected errors, framed better hypotheses, and tested them. That's how it works: it's called the advancement of knowledge--and we are all beholden to it every time we visit the doctor, or step on board an airplane, or log on to FR, or--well, you get the point :-)

Religion does not (could not/should not) use this methodology. It is pointless (and in some views, blasphemous) to seek naturalistic, scientific 'proof' of God. For many (and I once was one) who feel science threatens faith, then it is a valid option to simply leave science alone and follow your faith. What is not a valid option (in my view, and I'm passionate about this one) is to try and change science to accommodate your faith. This is what I accuse the Creationists of doing. For, if you think TOE is flawed science, then use genuine scientific methodolgy to invalidate the hypothesis; do not break the proven methodolgy of science in order to sneak in wholly unscientific stuff from your existing theological schema! That is dishonest, debasing, and ultimately very dangerous. This is what Stalin did in Russia, the mullahs in Iran, and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

I can think of many, many cases in history where churchmen have persecuted, even to death, scientists for holding religious 'heresies' that are now accepted as everyday commonplaces. I honestly cannot think of a single case in history of a scientist who has persecuted in any degree a religious leader for that leader's scientific views! But I offer this point as a hypothesis: if anyone has a counter-example, I'll revise/abandon my hypothesis here in full accordance with the scientific method!

[tonycavanagh]

re : Right, Intelligent design would be a disaster in the classroom but the F word, as we learned last week, has been deemed an absolutely indispensable learning tool in UK classrooms. Let's face it England is doomed.

Doomed Doomed were all Doomed.

Followed by the Red Coats are coming the Red Coats are coming.

Or the Yankees are coming the Yankees are coming.

I love it when Yanks tell the rest of us we are all doomed.

hflynn, little whisper in your ear, sort your own house out before knocking others. LOL

[hflynn]

I love it when Yanks tell the rest of us we are all doomed.

Yeah, your grandfather loved it in WW I and your father loved it in WW II.

hflynn, little whisper in your ear, sort your own house out before knocking others. LOL

Tonyc, little whisper in your ear, sort your own house out, just for once, before knocking the USA, better yet buy yourself a Koran because sorting your own house isn't something you've been able to do since your whole nation went on the dole.

[Stultis]

What is not a valid option (in my view, and I'm passionate about this one) is to try and change science to accommodate your faith. This is what I accuse the Creationists of doing.

I'm being nitpicking and pedantic, but I'd word that a bit differently.

Agreeing with you that science is a hypothetical-deductive method which tests (rather than verifies) theories, neither the origin of a theory nor the motivations of its originator matter in the strictly logical sense (however severe may be the practical effects of dilettantes forming theories to meet extra-scientific demands). The only thing that matters is how the theory fares under testing.

Therefore I'd say it is strictly valid (again, however impractical) to TRY and "change science to accommodate your faith." What is invalid is to demand that such efforts be granted immunity from failure, or any other special dispensation wrt the demands that are placed on any other scientific idea.

THIS is the problem with what creationists and ID'ers are doing. If they want to play the game of science, then that's fine. The problem is that they are insisting they be declared winners or at least contenders (in textbooks and curricula) before the game has even got through the first innings! Science is a game that the vast majority of contenders lose. That is most new hypotheses and theories fail. If you want to play the game you have to accept the possibility of losing, but this creationists won't do.

[stremba]

So if the average bear can observe that DNA base pairs change at the rate of say a few hundred per generation on average, why can't he make the same straight line extrapolation to lead to the several million pairs difference seen between closely related species? It's exactly the same thing, with the exception that religious beliefs have led to the notion that there's some mysterious barrier preventing small changes to one species from leading to a new species. Once a new species has formed, then what's the barrier preventing it from changing and forming yet another species, and so on. The various species of life form a continuum. Maybe the average bear can't see this, but that's just because the entire continuum is not alive today; most of the species forming the continuum are extinct. The small changes observed in living organisms are not any different than the small changes in position of the continents or the small layers of dirt that are laid down in a rainstorm. The fact that the average person doesn't see this is irrelevant. The evidence is out there.

[Rippin]

So if the average bear can observe that DNA base pairs change at the rate of say a few hundred per generation on average, why can't he make the same straight line extrapolation to lead to the several million pairs difference seen between closely related species?

:: Because the changes in base pairs don't necessarily add information. They can just as easily subtract or move sideways.

[stremba]

Because the changes in base pairs don't necessarily add information. They can just as easily subtract or move sideways.

So what? Evolution doesn't necessarily add information either. It can go "backwards" or "sideways", whatever that means.