Get Your Politics Out of My Science
It seems absurd to think that 80 years after the Scopes trial, with all the advances science has made to the betterment of society, that evolution is again being put on trial around the country in various school boards.
Science, like history, is not political. It is completely amoral. Science requires strict adherence to the scientific process whereby theories are formed, experiments conducted, and revisions to theories are then made. The goal is to approach a complete understanding of the topic in question. That, of course, can only be achieved when an exhaustive proof of the theory is complete, at which point it becomes a hypothesis. There can be no room for religious discussion, as religion necessarily is a matter of faith, which cannot be tested by the scientific method. Therefore, science and religion are not mutually exclusive - they operate in different realms.
The very credibility of the entire scientific profession is called into doubt when proponents of pseudo-sciences are able to elevate their claims to the schools and force the indoctrination of their religious belief system. It is just as true that religion is debased when proponents of pseudo-religions based on dubious scientific claims are brought to prominence by attention starved "celebrities."
Since the Scopes trial, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the teaching of creationism in public schools is tantamount to state endorsement of religion, and therefore proscribed by the First Amendment. (As an aside, it seems that we talk a lot about the Constitution here at It's Not Rocket Science. Could it be that this is the single, greatest document ever written?)
So now the creationists have wrapped their beliefs around a new "science" called "intelligent design." Their entire claim is based on the belief that some organisms are just too complex to be explained adequately by evolution,
Now please hold on to your hats because this is going to come as a shock to some: their claim is lifted (nay, plagiarized) directly from Darwin's On the Origin of Species! In that work, Darwin himself offers about 8 specific areas where he himself felt evolution may be unable to explain adequately the natural world. More to the point, Darwin specifically states that certain things are so complex that he was unsure that enough time had elapsed in the history of the world for them to have evolved. He uses the example of the eye as his test case.
For each one of his charges against evolution, he offers his analysis, based on observation and application of the scientific method, why he felt that evolution still provided the best explanation. This is exactly the way science is supposed to work. But let's return to that troublesome eye for a minute...
Darwin was unable to offer an explanation for an organ as complex as the eye, yet he felt that evolution was involved. Fast forward to the late 1990s and a group of scientists decided to put that to the test. In carefully crafted and well documented tests, they showed how, starting with a simple sensor that was sensitive to light, they could, through a series of incrementally small changes, "evolve" rudimentary sight. Now this certainly does not rise to the level of exhaustive proof, but it does show how, consistent with the theory, evolution could have led to the creation of complex structures.
What have the re-branded creationists done? They only claim that certain things are too complex. They have offered no experiments or rational explanations. They are merely reciting their belief system. This is patently the realm of religion and not science, irrespective of whether it is called creationism or intelligent design. A "theory" that cannot be tested is not a theory. In defense of their beliefs, they argue that if evolution were true, it should be able to withstand scientific scrutiny. The scientific community could not be more in agreement. They are just waiting for that scrutiny.
It's not rocket science. You cannot level unsubstantiated charges and then claim that your "questions" amount to a critical analysis of an established theory. If the intelligent design crowd wants equal time in the public schools, they must offer a scientific basis for their claims, not a religious one.
Science, like history, is not political. It is completely amoral. Science requires strict adherence to the scientific process whereby theories are formed, experiments conducted, and revisions to theories are then made. The goal is to approach a complete understanding of the topic in question. That, of course, can only be achieved when an exhaustive proof of the theory is complete, at which point it becomes a hypothesis. There can be no room for religious discussion, as religion necessarily is a matter of faith, which cannot be tested by the scientific method. Therefore, science and religion are not mutually exclusive - they operate in different realms.
The very credibility of the entire scientific profession is called into doubt when proponents of pseudo-sciences are able to elevate their claims to the schools and force the indoctrination of their religious belief system. It is just as true that religion is debased when proponents of pseudo-religions based on dubious scientific claims are brought to prominence by attention starved "celebrities."
Since the Scopes trial, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the teaching of creationism in public schools is tantamount to state endorsement of religion, and therefore proscribed by the First Amendment. (As an aside, it seems that we talk a lot about the Constitution here at It's Not Rocket Science. Could it be that this is the single, greatest document ever written?)
So now the creationists have wrapped their beliefs around a new "science" called "intelligent design." Their entire claim is based on the belief that some organisms are just too complex to be explained adequately by evolution,
Now please hold on to your hats because this is going to come as a shock to some: their claim is lifted (nay, plagiarized) directly from Darwin's On the Origin of Species! In that work, Darwin himself offers about 8 specific areas where he himself felt evolution may be unable to explain adequately the natural world. More to the point, Darwin specifically states that certain things are so complex that he was unsure that enough time had elapsed in the history of the world for them to have evolved. He uses the example of the eye as his test case.
For each one of his charges against evolution, he offers his analysis, based on observation and application of the scientific method, why he felt that evolution still provided the best explanation. This is exactly the way science is supposed to work. But let's return to that troublesome eye for a minute...
Darwin was unable to offer an explanation for an organ as complex as the eye, yet he felt that evolution was involved. Fast forward to the late 1990s and a group of scientists decided to put that to the test. In carefully crafted and well documented tests, they showed how, starting with a simple sensor that was sensitive to light, they could, through a series of incrementally small changes, "evolve" rudimentary sight. Now this certainly does not rise to the level of exhaustive proof, but it does show how, consistent with the theory, evolution could have led to the creation of complex structures.
What have the re-branded creationists done? They only claim that certain things are too complex. They have offered no experiments or rational explanations. They are merely reciting their belief system. This is patently the realm of religion and not science, irrespective of whether it is called creationism or intelligent design. A "theory" that cannot be tested is not a theory. In defense of their beliefs, they argue that if evolution were true, it should be able to withstand scientific scrutiny. The scientific community could not be more in agreement. They are just waiting for that scrutiny.
It's not rocket science. You cannot level unsubstantiated charges and then claim that your "questions" amount to a critical analysis of an established theory. If the intelligent design crowd wants equal time in the public schools, they must offer a scientific basis for their claims, not a religious one.
posted by exsubdriver at 1:22 PM
4 Comments:
RE: ...group of scientists decided to put that to the test. In carefully crafted and well documented tests, they showed how, starting with a simple sensor that was sensitive to light, they could, through a series of incrementally small changes, "evolve" rudimentary sight."
And where, pray tell (pun intended) did the sensor come from? Seems to me that "intelligent design" is not mutually exclusive with evolution.
.../exsubdriversdod
I never claimed that it was. My argument is that to be considered as a science, intelligent design must offer testable theories, not religious beliefs.
There are many single-cell organisms which are sensitive to light. There are also very simple inorganic compounds which are light sensitive. To claim that these, too, were so complex as to require intelligent design would still amount to a belief and would not rise to the level of scientific inquiry.
I think you may have mis-interpreted my post. I am not arguing against intelligent design or religion in general. I am saying that it is unfair to hurl unsubstantiated, untestable charges against science and then demand equal treatment in the classroom.
Yes it is true, that intelligent design requires a religious conviction of faith that the universe was "created". In that respect the IDers are just trying to obfuscate this when they want to use id rather than creation as the start. The one area that science can't prove is that something came from nothing. This is where religion and science converge. Once you get past the moment of nothing to something, creation is not mutually exclusive to science.
Science actually proves the opposite, that something cannot come from nothing. That is why the Big Bang theory is a theory and not a hypothesis. Science is currently unable to "see" back in time earlier than about 1 trillionth of a second after the event (whatever that event may have been). It is what happened in that brief period that is most interesting, however.
Post a Comment
<< Home