I found this little statement “religious indoctrination centers” amusing when reading through a series of papers on the ongoing and passionate debate over teaching evolution vs. intelligent design. It was a response to the Discovery Institute by Steve Benen (of Americans United for Separation of Church and State).
While I’m saddened that “modern” science is decidedly less scientific by clinging to evolution as a sole model I don’t think for a moment that any curriculum is indoctrination free. What’s amusing to me is that no one wants to identify that exclusionary education is by definition ”indoctrination.” By claiming that we’re ”preventing indoctrination” by exclusively teaching evolution we ARE indoctrinating (to teach with a biased or one-sided ideology). Kind of like adopting a totalitarian government to protect us from “bad” totalitarian governance.
As an experiential biblical theist there is no truth that can be presented that could shake my faith. Solid presentations of “evolutionary” evidence should be taken for what they are. Denying a fossil’s existence or the study of carbon dating is foolishness and presuming they inherently support or deny a faith position is equally so. Why should those who hold evolution so dearly be affraid of another set of teaching? When did questioning a possition (scientific or otherwise) become a fool’s notion? Why is failure to toe the line with evolutionary indoctrinators a “deep failure of education” as many are apt to claim?
What hopefully happens in the education process is that we give our children tools to rationally discern truths. While I personally believe that evolutionary thought is a religion in and of itself, I don’t disparage the science behind evolutionary study. I rather hope though, that continued study and scientific discernment continues in the field. Truth is inherently good and must be sought out and discerned.
Peace.
16 Comments
Here’s why.
We biologists have spent decades laboriously producing and examining evolutionary ideas with a barrage of empirical tests, discarding those without support and refining those that show promise. The field fruitfully employs tens of thousands of scientists- of many faiths- all over the world. Nowadays evolutionary theories are used for everything from designing flu vaccines to managing pesticide regimes to predicting the function of unknown proteins. Over a dozen technical studies that test or employ various aspects of evolution are published *every day*. This is more than twice that of, say, biochemistry. Evolution is what biologists do, and we do it with great success.
ID, in contrast, produces no original research, has no functioning labs, offers no scientific careers, and has produced no applications for medicine, industry, or agriculture. Its sole purpose, in practice, has been as a tool for evangelizing.
Why give ID equal time in the classroom when it hasn’t produced equal results? It’s akin to putting alchemy on the same level as chemistry. It is deeply misleading to students about the nature of science, and grossly unfair to all those people who’ve actually done research work.
myrmecos, thank you for the reply. I have more to ask you but have not the time do so right now. Till then, have a good evening.
This has nothing to do with evolution. It has to do with science. Once you allow pseudoscience into the biology classroom, pseudoscience will inevitably lobby to enter all the other science classrooms. Astrologers will want astrology taught in the astronomy classroom. Psychics will want clairvoyance taught in the physics classroom. Etcetera. Never mind the fact that creationism derives specifically from the Judeo-Christian religious tradition, and thus violates the separation clause in the Constitution.
The problem with many criticisms of evolution is that they’re simply wrong. They either misrepresent what evolutionary theory actually says, or they misrepresent the evidences for evolutionary theory, or they try to inject some kind of moral argument into the fray where it is irrelevant.
Questioning for the purpose of learning biology is different from questioning for the purpose of disagreeing at all costs.
This is true, to a point. But what of ideas which are very subtle and complicated? Education isn’t simply about teaching students how to learn. It’s also about teaching facts about the world. Should we give middle and high school children academic research papers to read, let them just make up their own minds? The same papers graduate students have to chug through? I mean, what are you really advocating here? You’re advocating an equivalency between the knowledge of a teenager and the knowledge of the whole academic, scientific establishment. I doubt even many adults could get through the average research paper without looking up every other word. How can we possibly expect a teenager to?
stel said,
“As an experiential biblical theist there is no truth that can be presented that could shake my faith.”
begging your pardon friend…but that is a very bold statement…and one you really are not privy to knowing as a fact at this time…
it is these types of statements that bring trial…for real…they open the doors for them to test your words….to prove if you are true or a liar…and all things that make a lie will be cast into the lake of fire…
i too must learn to be careful about holding certainties we are not certain of…for we must be certain…only GOD knows the heart…
much love …theseldomscene…
I am not a scientist, nor do I play one on television. But my little pinhead has been able to wrap itself around evolution.
Evolution is a theory.
In science, the definition of a theory is “a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree” (thank you yourdictionary.com).
Think of the theory of gravity. I am going to make the leap that you go along with this one. Newton observed, thought about it, experimented and presented his findings which still hold water to this day.
So Darwin went on the Beagle and noted the different finches on the Galapogas Islands and gave it a good long ponder.
After much work and research, he laid out his theory of evolution in “Origin of the Species” – note this is not the origin of the universe, the origin of life on earth or the origin of everything. He was only discussing how species development different characteristics over time and how these changes are the result of environmental pressures such as the available food supply and predators.
He presented this to the world of scientists who have been trying to blow a hole in it for over a hundred years.
There has never been any experiment or evidence to contradict this theory – bits have been argued about in terms of specific mechanisms but the scientific community has never rejected the theory as a whole.
Much fame and a Nobel prize would await the scientist who was able to blow it to pieces.
In fact, the theory has successfully predicted the sort of fossils that would be discovered, all those intermediate creatures that are coming up.
So that is how science works, observation, some hard thinking, experimenting to prove or disprove and a lot of discussion. If it’s wrong, it gets thrown out and on to re-exam and start over.
At any moment any scientific theory can go bye-bye with new evidence. It’s not an ideology. It is not a philosophy. It is just observing and trying to figure out how it all works.
ID, however, tries to find evidence to match the belief, rejecting any proof to the contrary and inserting an Intelligent Being created it all.
In teaching science, it is entirely appropriate to teach evolution – it is a scientific theory. Teaching ID, however, is teaching something supernatural that has no hard scientific evidence.
I am not dissing your beliefs here. I am just saying that ID has as much business in a science classroom as evolution does in Sunday school.
If you really are interested, look into what happened in the Dover trial. The judge was appointed by President Bush and had no bias toward evolution. He found that the teaching if ID was Creationism in disguise and therefore religious and therefore not allowable in a PUBLIC school.
Anyone is free to teach their children anything they want at home but it is dangerous and unfair to ask the state to support any religious teaching in the classroom.
So evolution came from observation, theorizing and constant test along with being predictive as any good theory should and can be totally overturned at any moment and thrown out if evidence contradicts it.
ID came from people whose beliefs were challenged and contradicted by this theory and have been trying to build a new theory based on a religious book. It cannot be tested. It cannot be contradicted by new evidence and there is no evidence that proves it.
So render unto science the things that are science.
No one is afraid of ID challenging evolution scientifically. They are just tired of a belief system constantly being presented as scientific and having it forced on them.
Stay well, my friend
Myrmecos, you are extremely articulate in professing your support for evolution and it’s role in the classroom/educational docket. However, you disregard ID merely because the lack of material benefits it offers (as you suggested, medicine, jobs, etc. etc). Although I don’t know of any material component that has developed as a result of ID, I don’t think that’s ID’s intended purpose. As for jobs, that’s rather iffy as professors of ID would surely rise to the occasion, given the market is allowed to exist.
I think the intended purpose of the field is that of ‘meaning’. What is? Why? For the reason of meaning, I don’t see why ID would be banned from a classroom. Since when is this notion of separation of church and state so absolutely stretched that man may no longer analyze truths and meanings in the classroom?
At the collegiate level, we don’t study Religion because of some material component that results as of study. Rather, we study it for the understanding of man, or rather we study it for the ‘meaning’ and ‘truths’ we can discern through study.
I think it’s the responsibility of science to work on discovering meaning. I think it’s ID’s intended purpose to work out the meaning behind the universe (through analyzing complications and difficulties of the universe’s first cause through the scientific method). If science’s end-goal is to come to an understanding of the universe, why wouldn’t it take a radical school of thought such as ID into account? Is it not against science’s very nature to exclude any argumentation for the sole reason that another is more experienced (aka Biology)? Does science not exist as a system of constant questioning, open to any argument, with no 100% conclusive truths, just relative truths and theories based on repetitive tests? Where is the diversity of ideas American Academia prize upon?
I just don’t understand why, after seeing science for it’s intended purpose and end-goal, that any line of reasoning would be barred from the public educational sphere.
I agree with the author’s argument on the indoctrination of Evolution, and that this whole system of indoctrination is against the spirit of science itself. I would rather open the windows to a room of discovery, then bar them down and narrow the vantage point of those looking outward.
-LeonardOoh
Myrmecos does make a point. I understand your definition of indoctrination, but perhaps indoctrination isn’t such a bad thing. After all, what if the doctrine is right? Okay, so my school doesn’t teach the intelligent design theory. They also don’t propose that the world might be flat or that the Sun is actually the chariot of the god Apollo. Is this indoctrination or education?
“While I personally believe that evolutionary thought is a religion in and of itself,….”
Evolution is a religion to the same extent that heliocentrism is a religion. Evolution is a religion to the same extent that quantum mechanics is a religion. Evolution is a religion to the same extent that relativity is a religion. And so forth.
The only difference between evolution and the others is that evolution provides a kind of creation story, which had heretofore been the sole province of religion. But that single shared characteristic does not make evolution a religion. The way to tell the difference is that evolution is based upon observation and logical inference, whereas religion is based upon revelation and authority.
good responses!
That’s pretty much the exact opposite of what science’s responsibility is.
Analyze truths? Tell me, how would one verify the claims of Intelligent Design? Say some designer designed you. How would you verify that? Can you reproduce it in an experiment?
The fact is that ID is intrinsically untestable. The designer is postulated exactly in such a way so that he’s undetectable by experiment, no matter how crude or complex the experiment might be.
To make a long story short:
Untestable = Not science
So I suppose tarot card reading, crystal reading, water dowsing, mind-reading, talking to the dead, astrology, Islam, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Wiccan, Judaism, Sihkism, Hinduism, Taoism, Shintoism, Daoism, Confucianism, telepathy, Big Foot, Loch Ness monster, Chupacabra, alien abductions, Jainism, homeopathy, and every other religion, belief, claim, or conspiracy invented over the course of human history should also be taught in the science classroom?
Perhaps we should just get rid of math and history and writing and music and art, and put all this other crap into the schools instead. That’s the only way we’re going to make room for it.
Alas, you don’t really want all that crap in schools. You just want your specific brand of crap: creationism. But you’re willing to sacrifice the education of school children at the altar of your own ignorance.
Unless you were kidding. Which is what I thought.
What intrigues me in the variety of responses so far is that many focus on the “science” being taught in the classroom.
As one who studied biology and some sub-disciplines for many years I can say that science wasn’t the only subject taught in those early classrooms. ID and other cultural models seem to seek a foothold in the classrooms because everything else wants a foothold there as well. What really seems to be at issue is “does my pet cultural idea have a foothold there?”
True, faith presupposes “science” but science is a variable notion to our different cultures and sub-cultures. Even our current Western culture approaches the discipline of science within a variety of epistemologies. Presupposing this isn’t the case would be creating an “alter of ignorance” as well (to borrow the phrase from Jon).
What prompted the initial post, the questions and the like was a notion that while our social pluralism is exaggerating we are losing our ability for conflict resolution – drifting more toward “team” loyalty and the jabs associated with sports affiliation.
I’m glad for the input here. Most have well thought out opinions though the tendency towards defensive/offensive positions is evident and not altogether unexpected.
Peace to you all; keep talking this out as you like.
Hate to break it to you, but these “culture wars” have been going on for over a century. The conflict resolution you’re talking about never existed.
I have to ask, though. At what point do you consider someone a complete crank not worth anyones’ time? Not everyone has a valid viewpoint. Not all sides of a discussion are equal. This is a myth of modern media. Some people are wrong, some are right.
When you’ve dealt with the ID crowd as long as some people have, you’ll learn how truly dishonest and political they are. Give them an inch, and they’ll drag you into the mud for miles and miles.
@Jon
I would add that the culture wars have been going on as long as we’ve had a culture. It’s only been in recent centuries that we’ve had societies that abided cultural dissidence though only in isolated incidences even then. The conflict resolution did and does exist and was one of the core elements of the The Federalist Papers – extending into modern democratic theory.
To the notion of “cranks”: there are all sorts of folk out there. Some rational people end up being “cranks” because their concerns haven’t been heard over and over again and they fall back on emotional and at times aggressive tactics to be heard. I’ve known plenty of Darwinists, ID, and ADD that would fall into the same category – I find myself there sometimes.
There are just enough irrational folks out there to keep us all humble. Being right or wrong doesn’t help one win a debate or settle an argument. We choose to treat one another with respect or not. Someone who’s a crank to me likely identifies me as one as well. If we’re looking to understand one another and move forward we have to move past this.
You’ve obviously been in some ugly situations and for that I’m sorry. I would imagine however, that the “crowd” you speak of feels much the same way.
I was ambiguous, so I take your correction. I was more referring to the culture wars over evolution.
Which compromises came out of the conflict resolution which got the Constitution ratified? I can think of a few nasty ones. Not that I’m not grateful that our Constitution was ratified. I’m just not willing to “compromise” science for the sake of conflict resolution.
People are emotional. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s not the issue. The issue is that ID advocacy organizations (specifically the Discovery Institute) have been shown time and time again to be disguised religious outfits. There’s simply no comparing the political tactics of ID creationists with scientific advocates. There’s no equal footing there. I’m talking about prominent, mainstream ID proponents, not the wacky fringe proponents.
Yes, that pretty much exhausts all the possibilities.
There was a time when biologists did give ID proponents the benefit of the doubt. Many scientists still do. They do treat and speak of them quite civilly, even if they stridently refute their arguments. But this ID movement is going on twenty years old. They’ve long since lost the benefit of the doubt with the vast majority of scientists.
Science is a meritocracy, ultimately, and ultimately, civility is simply a tool to facilitate discussion. When no real discussion emerges over the course of twenty years, even when civility is employed, some people become jaded. Such is the state of the conflict now. At least while the same main people run the ID organizations. (They are, as it happens, the same people who started the whole movement)
I haven’t, personally. I’ve talked with many ID proponents over the Internet, but that has no bearing on me personally.
From this statement it seemed like a safe assumption to deduce that you’d been in some personal battles. “Dealt with” that often emerges after some exasperating discussions.
I would have to disagree with the premise that either side really does treat one another with much civility. In most discussions I’ve ever witnessed or experienced (public or private) folk enter the debate with the full force and utter confidence that they hold the truth – coming into any discussion with the presumption that the other is a fool.
The initial post was not so much a defense of the Discovery Institute (didn’t know they existed till a few months ago) but a recognition that both “sides” tended to use each others’ words to gain a foothold in the public debate.
At some point in the not too distant future I’d like to discuss the epistemology of modern science and the history of the scientific method. Many here have some good insights and experiences and I think it’d be worth talking through as well.
I don’t want to presume too much, but if you’ve only heard of the Discovery Institute recently, I have to doubt the breadth of your experience with the tactics and ideas of the Intelligent Design movement.
Yes, both sides use each others’ words. That’s what politics is about. But again, there is not some sort of equality here. ID proponents are notorious for taking quotes out of context–wildly and obviously out of context–when making their arguments. I’m not exaggerating in the least here. Some ID editorials contain quotes with whole pages expurgated between two sentences the editorialist is trying to connect. This isn’t honest, I think you would agree. Google “quote mining” sometime to get an idea of what I’m talking about. There are whole pages dedicated to this particular ID tactic.
That would be great.