The State Board of Education is going to meet in January to debate whether to accept two biology textbooks that espouse the theory of evolution as the basis for the modern scientific understanding of life. Apparently concerns were raised over comments made by former Clemson professor Horace Skipper who criticised the books because "I didn't see where they had the scientific support that I think public schools need in a textbook." Having not read the textbooks, I have decided to comment on this issue only from a general, theoretical perspective.
First, the theory of evolution is not just a theory, as many of its detractors like to point out. If one ascribes to the paradigmatic view of science as illustrated in the classic The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, then one surely must concede that the theory of evolution ushered in a paradigm shift in scientific thought. It did not answer the questions, it framed the debate, rescued science from a series of pitfalls and red herrings, and brought about a new lense through which to look at our world. If one is a pragmatist, in the sense that one believes that truth is that which is proven through experience and results, then it is difficult to look at the relationship between science and technology as it exists today, as it has evolved since the paradigm shift brought about by Darwin's classic theory, and to deny that evolution essentially "works". Scientific research from within the evolutionary paradigm has given us cures for diseases once thought incurable, the cloning of entire organisms, the mapping and understanding of the human genome, the ability to turn stem cells into functioning organs, and the subsequent ability to turn other cells into stem cells.
The truth of the matter is that evolution is not up for debate in the scientific community. The only real topic for debate on evolution is at what level it occurs (e.g. macro-evolution vs. micro-evolution). That our State Board of Education would deny what has proven itself to be the truth to our students is alarming. I can only figure two possible reasons that this debate even exists today, one political and one based on the frailties of human nature.
The political, and largely cynical, view is that the members of the State Board of Education who consider themselves proponents of creationism or "intelligent design" (my favorite oxymoron) are simply pandering to what they perceive as their base, much like the Presidential candidates pander to the far reaches of their "base" in the primaries. This is why we see John McCain speaking at Jerry Falwell's "university", Mitt Romney getting a hunting license, or Hillary Clinton "singing" traditional African-American spirituals. Now we have conservative members of the State Board of Education pandering to what they consider to be their base: uneducated, religious conservatives. If I were one who considered myself a conservative, I would personally be offended that these people truly believe that they can placate me and reserve my support through passing off such rubbish on the already beleaguered South Carolina student.
The only other explanation I can think of for this aberration is one based on the frailties of human nature. This is based on my perception that many religious people think that there is a necessary conflict between evolutionary science and Christian faith. In short, these people are so afraid of going to Hell that they cannot possibly accept that the Bible might not be literally written. This is the frailty of human nature- fear of the unknown. The Bible, particularly as read by many of those on the more conservative side of religion, provides a quick and easy way to eternal bliss. Anything professing to be "knowledge" that may conflict with that path to bliss must be vehemently denied and hidden from the marketplace of ideas. My only answer to these people is that religion is an epistemology of faith. Science is an epistemology of reason. These are two entirely different ways of looking at the world, addressing very different subjects, and each ought to be separate. Just as Jefferson argued for the separation of church and state, I argue for the separation of church and science. When viewed properly, I believe that religion and science can be just as copacetic as apple pie and ice cream.
Ultimately, the dogmatic adherence to religious views when applied to scientific study will produce the same false beliefs that lead us to the "understanding" of spontaneous generation. Similarly, a dogmatic adherence to scientific views when applied outside of their scope will produce the same false beliefs that lead us to Social Darwinism and the Holocaust. We must temper our beliefs and our understandings. To the SC Board of Education I beseech you, please separate science and religion, please temper your views, open your eyes to the world around you- a world of shades of grey and nuanced understanding, not a world of black and white, good and evil.
9 comments:
Great post. It sucks that this is such a touchy subject with so many people. People fear what they don't know or understand and they are too close-minded and ignorant to look at this subject objectively. Ignorance is bliss...I guess. How does "dogmatic adherence to scientific views" lead to the Holocaust?
What I meant was misapplication of Darwin's natural selection lead to the Holocaust. Social Darwinism is a sort of society-level survival of the fittest mentality that lead a few pretty smart people down the wrong path. Resulted in eugenics and, ultimately (perhaps just arguably) the Holocaust. Granted there were other factors that lead to the Holocaust, but Social Darwinism was one of them.
okay, Syphilis-king Hitler and his German infidels thought they were the stronger and smarter than the Jews...
Social Darwinism also lead to some pretty insidious government action here in the USA as well. There is an infamous US Supreme Court case, Buck v. Bell, in which the Court comtemplates the Constitutionality of a Kentucky law requiring the sterilization of people deemed by the state to be mentally incompetent. While the Court has since overturned the decision, at the time, when Social Darwinism was en vogue, the Court held that the law was indeed constitutional, citing that "three generations of embeciles is enough."
Interestingly, the lady at the center of the court case was found to be still living in the 1980's. By all accounts she, as well as her daughter, were women of average intelligence, living a normal life (except for their inability to procreate). This is the problem with Social Darwinism- it is an inexact "science" that more often than not provides justification for very draconian state actions.
"If I were one who considered myself a conservative, I would personally be offended that these people truly believe that they can placate me and reserve my support through passing off such rubbish on the already beleaguered South Carolina student"
I think the reason they believe such is because, unfortunately, it does work. I didn't realize you were posting again Blue, I am excited to to come over and hassle you here in my very meager spare time.
"the theory of evolution is not just a theory"...somehow, the logic of this statement defies logic...
"they cannot possibly accept that the Bible might not be literally written"
now that's a strange statement...how can it not be 'literally written?'...can i apply that same logic and say that what i just wrote wasn't literally written?...
i think we've had this discussion before, but if not, then here it comes...read a little michael polanyi and thomas kuhn...they're scientists, not theologians...you should appreciate kuhn since he made popular the idea of paradign shifts...kuhn found the world of science to be very dogmatic and not open to new paradigms...one of the worst mitigating factors was the "priesthood of scientists" where the masters of knowledge were not to be challenged, only adored...
polanyi's idea of tacit knowledge brings human subjectivity to the art of science while kuhn says that scientists are not objective and independent thinkers but rather, have been taught to use their acquired knowledge to solve problems...you know, thinking inside the box...
so in conclusion, if the scientific community says that the theory of evolution isn't a just a theory, then who are we argue with the sacrament of priesthood?...
LM - I'm not sure you understood what I was saying: the theory of evolution brought about the paradigm shift to the modern way of thinking. While I don't believe that the scientific method is infallible, it is hard to deny the existence of evolution when viewed in terms of the results that science has produced while operating within the evolutionary paradigm.
As to the Bible not being "literally written," you got me on that one. I meant read literally. Sloppy, stream-of-consciousness without editing tends to bear its ugly head at times.
Silence - you're right that the masses seem to eat up the whole "intelligent design" phenomenon, despite the complete dearth of support it has scientifically and philosophically. I still don't see the difference between intelligent design and deism, yet even though deism has been thoroughly discredited, it seems to crop up as a nice compromise between logic and faith.
"I'm not sure you understood what I was saying: the theory of evolution brought about the paradigm shift to the modern way of thinking. While I don't believe that the scientific method is infallible, it is hard to deny the existence of evolution when viewed in terms of the results that science has produced while operating within the evolutionary paradigm."
i understood what you meant about the paradigm shift...but i'm not sure you understood what i was saying...science touts itself as objective and independent when nothing could be further from the truth...science is as dogmatic, fundamentalist, and locked down as any religion...offer an alternative view from the grand masters and see how far your career goes...scientists are looking for evolution ergo they find what they are looking for...humans have an odd bone at the end of their spine...to them, it resembles a tail...monkeys have tails...gee whiz, proof that we evolved from monkeys...
what if there is a third view on the origin of life other than evolution or intelligent design...maybe we really do exist in the matrix...could science find it if all their experiments are designed (play on words) to lead them to the same conclusion??
what kuhn was saying is that science doesn't accept new paradigms easily and when they do, these new paradigms become the new doctrine...
as to 'literally written,' i knew what you meant...it was just fun to catch you in an unedited moment...
LM - there is an alternative view as to what Kuhn was saying. Even if scientists are dogmatic, they epistemology is not. Thus the system allows for revolutions and evolution of thought. But, in a way you're right. Would you agree that Darwin is to science as Luther is to Christianity? But the obvious next question returns to the pragmatic justifications for evolution. Science and technology have made drastic leaps in a very short time under the evolutionary paradigm, lending credence to the theory. The same might be said of the Protestant church. It grew rapidly in many directions and fostered the growth of Western civilization into the dominant civilization on the planet.
The difference between your monkey tail explanation is the same as saying that the success of Protestantism proves the existence of God. That is a common fallacy in interpreting the pragmatic theory of truth. It is the process that is preeminent to the pragmatist, not the product. Thus, the success of science under the evolutionary paradigm is not in and of itself proof that evolution was right. Rather it serves as evidence that the scientific method is a proper method at reaching truth. Similarly, the success of the Protestant church does not verify the existence of God, it verifies the efficacy of Protestant theology.
Finally, it should be noted that the pragmatic method of determining truth is often more helpful with telling us that which is not more so than tellings that which is. We learn, then from the success of science that intelligent design, or deism as it was styled at the time, is not the correct way to look at the world. We learn from the success of the Protestant church that the old Catholic church's theology was not the best theology.
Post a Comment