The critics, in my opinion, are quite right that "intelligent design" is an (apparently successful) attempt to inject creationism into Kansas public schools. I'm less convinced that the mere mention of the possibility of a superempirical design force, without filling in any of the details, violates the constitutional separation of church and state. I think, at worst, it is possibly a step onto a slippery slope that pushes towards violating the separation of church and Kansas. I don't think you're going to find California schools rushing to teach intelligent design.The 6-4 vote was a victory for "intelligent design" advocates who helped draft the standards. Intelligent design holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.
Critics of the new language charged that it was an attempt to inject God and creationism into public schools in violation of the separation of church and state.
Supporters of the new standards said they will promote academic freedom. "It gets rid of a lot of dogma that's being taught in the classroom today," said board member John Bacon.
And the supporters have a good point. It's not that allowing the teaching of intelligent design will "get rid of a lot of dogma", but it does allow balancing dogma regarding evolution with creationist dogma. I'm absolutely convinced at this point that many of the proponents of evolution are "True Believers". They use terms like "believe in" when talking about evolution, common descent, etc., which clearly implies a religious or dogmatic belief. If you don't believe that, consider the following:
It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that). -- Richard Dawkins, a leading proponent of evolution, (September, 2001)Dawkins later defended this statement, so it wasn't just a slip of his tongue. The statement wraps up a definition of dogma with the definition of what is heretical thought with respect to the dogma. If that's not the speech of a believer, I don't know what is.
In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.
Many opponents point to this "redefinition" of science as one reason not to teach Intelligent Design. I don't think this holds much water. The first definition for science is "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." It doesn't say that it need be limited to the search for natural explanations. The other approach to eliminating the "redefinition" of science is to call it "Science and Philosophy of Science" class. There's no reason such topics need to be taught at different times. I personally think an emergent and integrated curriculum is a better approach anyway.
The article states that the Kansas School Board is "[r]isking the kind of nationwide ridicule it faced six years ago" when it contemplated the same thing. Unfortunately, it may be that evolution proponents' position in this debate is so weak, that the only weapon they have left is to ridicule the other side.
7 comments:
Bret:
Intelligent design holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.
Is incorrect.
Holding that the universe is so complex it must have been created by a power is called general creation.
Intelligent Design insists that certain features of natural history (i.e., life) are both complex and irreducible. Because the odds of such a thing appearing out of whole cloth even given the entire lifespan of the universe are essentially zero, that the only possible conclusion is that such features must have been specially created.
My concern isn't so much some violation of church and state, but rather a special case of intellectual affirmative action has been created for ID.
Regardless of which definition of science you happen to choose, all scientific theories have binding deductive consequenes. ID does not have even one such deductive consequence.
Additionally, and perhaps most tellingly, ID has done absolutely no research. Ever. I don't happen to have the link handy, but the Templeton Foundation, which offers funding for research seeking just the supernatural link with science to which you referred, extended a funding offer to all the leading ID proponents.
It was never taken--the foundation's money stayed on the table.
That is a singularly strange science that is so reluctant to do research.
Finally, it seems a little one sided to chide Dawkins, while ignoring this (and a thousand examples like it.)
Richard Dawkins' comment was quite ironically funny, since HE HIMSELF is ignorant, stupid, and possibly insane (or wicked).
He has turned himself into a clown, doing the intellectual equivalent of slapstick, apparently without realizing it.
hey skipper wrote: "...Is incorrect... Holding that the universe is so complex it must have been created by a power is called general creation."
I don't disagree. That was just an excerpt from the article. It's not even clear whether the Kansas Board of Education made such a statement or the journalist writing the article made the misstatement.
hey skipper also wrote: "My concern isn't so much some violation of church and state, but rather a special case of intellectual affirmative action has been created for ID."
Of the knowledge currently known to man, how much is taught in schools? .001%? .000000001%? Whatever it is, it's a small percentage.
Everything that has been chosen to be taught has been chosen based on a sort of "intellectual affirmative action". Those things being taught are not necessarily more deserving of begin taught, it's just that those particular topics were endorsed by more educators, for whatever reason (or no reason). In other words, the winners write history.
Whereas you and I think ID is completely bogus, the people of Kansas think it's critically important that it be taught to their children. What's affirmative action material to us is important material to others.
hey skipper also wrote: "Regardless of which definition of science you happen to choose, all scientific theories have binding deductive consequenes."
I'm not sure I quite follow this. Does historical evolution (for example, the theory of common descent) have binding deductive consequences? What are they?
Lastly, as far as chiding Dawkins goes (while ignoring others), note that I wrote that teaching ID is "balancing dogma regarding evolution with creationist dogma". In other words, I'm well aware of the other side as well. But it still seems to me that folks like Dawkins (and there are many other examples there as well), who is an Oxford professor have basically stooped as low a the other side.
Bret:
By intellectual affirmative action, I meant including something which clearly fails to meet the entry criteria. That means I don't mind schools teaching ID, just that it belongs in a comparative religion class, not science.
Teaching ID as a scientific theory means ignoring that it is based on evidentiary gaps, not evidence, that it has absolutely no binding deductive consequences, and that there is absolutely no -- as in nada, nil, zilch -- ID research, despite at least one organization ponying up money.
So it may very well be important material to at least some Kansas parents, but it is not important scientific material. It no more belongs in a science class than Ebonics does in an Oakland, CA English class simply because many parents think it important material.
And if one grants the ID proponents their desire, there is absolutely no reason not to teach Creationist Astronomy, or Creationist Geology.
Yes, they exist.
I understand this raises important questions about parents having to fund an education including at least some elements they find wholly objectionable. Unfortunately, I don't have the time at the moment to do anything more than a little hand-waving by noting: people must pay all their taxes, even though some of those taxes might go to some activities they find morally reprehensible; and that, even for the offended, drinking a steady diet of your own bathwater is a real good way to get blinsided (never mind provide an opportunity for mixed metaphor).
Naturalistic evolution does have binding consequences. Here are some I know of:
All isolated populations must diverge over time, and the divergence is proportional to the time separated.
Genomic similarity between organisms must be proportional to their separation in the linnean classification.
The genetic variation between related organisms must be a function of the time since the last shared ancestor and known mutation rates.
Those are three having to do with common descent. Taking the last for an example, we share about (IIRC) 98.5% of our genome with chimpanzees, which is right where it should be based upon the existing best guess time since the last shared ancestor. If that number had been, say, 88.5%, then naturalistic evolution would have been holed below the water line.
I agree with you that Dawkins stooped to ad hominem attack. But I don't think it is possible for him to have come anywhere near the other side. Christian Reconstructionists would quite happily put Dawkins (and any other evilutionist) to the stake, should they get the chance.
hey skipper,
All good points and well presented.
Your first objection, that it's not science, can be overcome by simply calling "Science" class "Science and Philosophy of Science and Metaphysics" class instead (or something like that). I think that's a fair compromise. There's no reason science needs to be a standalone discipline.
So by binding consequences of a theory you're identifying something similar to the predictive power of a theoretical model. And if the binding consequences could be shown to be false, then the theory would be disproven or at least shown to have holes.
The past is forever frozen. It's unrepeatable and not directly observable. There is nothing in the empirical data from the past that contradicts evolution (and if there was, they'd just tweak the theory a little). Thus, the theory of evolution, looking back to the past, is non-disprovable. But that makes it not particularly useful.
Evolution is also not particularly good at making predictions going forward in a time frame that's useful. Sure, the occasional bird migrates hither rather than tither, the occasional moth changes color, and the occasional pathogen eludes eradication. But none of these things were predicted ahead of time by evolution, at least not the specific instance.
I use a technique call "genetic algorithms" in my robotics work for optimization problems. I use this technique when there's no analytical way to come up with the solution. In other words, the solution can't be predicted. So I turn the genetic algorithm loose and hope to get lucky. As an aside, I see things like "irreducible complexity" all of the time, so most of the logical arguments for ID ring hollow to me.
The problem is that ahead of time, evolution can't predict anything specific. After the fact, no matter what happens, evolution can explain the result. A theory that predicts that anything could happen predicts nothing. It's not very useful. It also smells like dogma to me.
So looking backwards it can't be disproven, just like ID. Looking forward in any human timeframe, it can't predict anything specific, just like ID. So it seems to me that evolution, especially backward looking, has a lot in common with ID.
The other solution is to simply not teach evolution. You can still teach genetics, DNA, double strand breaks, mutation, etc. - just leave out common descent and the other dogmatic aspects.
Bret:
You replied can be overcome by simply calling "Science" class "Science and Philosophy of Science and Metaphysics"
True enough. Possibly. But I doubt an authoritative discussion on what constitutes scientific inquiry would cast ID in any other than an unfavorable light.
But that isn't what ID proponents in Kansas want; rather, they are attempting to turn the clock back 500 years in redefining what constitutes science, and along the way present ID as a valid scientific alternative to naturalistic evolution.
There is nothing in the empirical data from the past that contradicts evolution (and if there was, they'd just tweak the theory a little). Thus, the theory of evolution, looking back to the past, is non-disprovable.
There is a contradiction there; however, it seems to be your own. In saying scientists would tweak the theory a little (or a lot, depending on the magnitude of the discrepancy), that completely concedes some portion of naturalistic evolution, including the whole kit and kaboodle is prey to tweaking, or sinking, should the need arise.
As I noted above, if the overlap between the chimpanzee and human genome were even a little bit less than a something amazingly close to total, that single fact alone would destroy a fundamental part of naturalistic evolution, at least with respect to humans. If that sort ot thing doesn't make naturalistic evolution fasifiable, then what would it take?
Evolution is also not particularly good at making predictions going forward in a time frame that's useful.
Nor is plate tectonics. They are both historical sciences that attempt to provide a parsiminous explanation for the phenomena within their purview. Yet that doesn't seem to a problem for plate tectonics (absent Creationist Geology -- should that get taught, also?)
Which isn't to say evolutionary theory isn't without predictions. Sometime before we were able to sequence genomes, evolutionary theory, in combination with population statistics, made the prediction that the frequency of deletorious mutations in a population would be proportional to the inverse of the population size.
Sequenced genomes confirm that prediction completely.
After the fact, no matter what happens, evolution can explain the result.
That is simply wrong. The deductive consequences I listed above are far from complete. And should any observation contradict any one of them, naturalistic evolution takes a hit somewhere between serious and fatal.
In contrast, I'll bet no one can suggest even one observation, no experiment no matter how hypothetical, that would invalidate ID.
The other solution is to simply not teach evolution. You can still teach genetics, DNA, double strand breaks, mutation, etc. - just leave out common descent and the other dogmatic aspects.
Why? ID has conceded common descent and natural selection; the only "content" it has is asserting that some (unknown, undefined) changes in DNA (which are then inherited via natural selection) are due to an (unknown, undefined) deus ex machina which might be God.
Or not.
The real, well, one of them, anyway, irony here is that, according to this article we are in Christianity's debt: "While the other world religions emphasized mystery and intuition, Christianity alone embraced reason and logic as the primary guides to religious truth."
Which is all well and good until reason and logic lead to religious truths that clash with religious dogma, which is well and truly immune to tweaking.
BTW -- I have a Daily Duck post in the works that discusses just one particularly peculiar part of our genome. One that is a "well, duh" moment for naturalistic evolution.
And about which ID can, at best, manage only foot shuffling silence.
hey skipper wrote: "BTW -- I have a Daily Duck post in the works that discusses just one particularly peculiar part of our genome."
Excellent. I always enjoy your posts. Assuming it's coming soon, I'll hold of my response to your last comment until I get a chance to read it.
Post a Comment