Off the top of my head let me tell you some things that I've come to discern over the years with regard to evolution and intelligent design.
• Creationism/ID is not worthy of being taught in science classes because it is not science. It is the antithesis of science. They approach the debate from the basis of 'Well we have the book of Genesis here, so let's work backwards and see what can possible prove it, and then that's that.' Whereas science operates on the premise of 'Well, we have this hypothesis, so let's gather data and evidence and see where that takes us, and then retest it, and see where the holes are, and after that we'll gather more stuff..' Science is a never-ending search for natural truths.
• Theory means something else in scientific circles than it does in the common vernacular. A theory is not something that is just thrown out there as if pulled out of a scientist's ass; it is a proven, logical framework for how something occurs in nature. You cannot just say 'My theory on why the sky is blue is because it's full of Skittles.' Darwin didn't write 'I have this thought about natural selection, but rather than show you how I came to it, I'm gonna have a beer.' Theories require substantial evidence because they must hold up under a brand of scrutiny that most of us cannot imagine; creationism & ID don't hold up at all, but when you don't worry about the details I guess that's alright. Bottom line is: a scientific theory is very substantial. Just look at gravity.
• That being said, it's rather a moot point here. Evolution as a process is certain; it is a biological fact of life. The theory part comes in with regard to the method by which it occurs, for which natural selection is the current front-runner. Evolutionary change is the foundation of modern biology; every advancement made in the last 150 years owes itself to this establishment. To deny evolution is to deny the very fruits of modernity.
• Beyond which, the notion that evolution is a godless way of teaching kids about the world around them is about the most irrelevant thing ever. Of course it's godless, in the exact same way that multiplications tables and dictionaries are godless ways of teaching kids about arithmetic and grammar. Science doesn't concern itself with questions of God and religion, and for good reason: it has no bearing on natural processes and events. Of course, what do you expect from religious people, who should be the welcoming bunch, when they say the following:
When the Pitch asked Calvert how he could explain the fact that a scientist like Miller had no problem accepting evolution while also being a Christian, the lawyer said that Miller just "wants to keep his job."
Anyway, all I can think is that these people really could've saved themselves a lot of time and energy by picking up a book and reading about the last time all of this went down. Or better yet, go rent the movie that was made about it. In fact, I have a copy of the DVD; I'd be happy to loan it to the State Board of Education. But let's hope they have regular DVD players; computers might be next in the witchhunt. After all, binary codes don't involve Jesus.
No comments:
Post a Comment