- 2006.01.04
Sometimes Dan Knight, Low End Mac's publisher, lets us
take off on a non-Mac tangent when the mood strikes us (he's been known
to do it himself from time to time), so I thought I'd weigh in with
some thoughts on the recent controversies surrounding "intelligent
design".
The ongoing debate in schools about evolution vs. intelligent design
once again brings the evolution controversy to the forefront of the
American educational psyche.
Intelligent design (ID) is the idea that the universe (life, in
particular) is so complex that an organizing deity (carefully unnamed)
must have had a hand in designing it.
Evolution is the idea that changes in species are natural, random,
and filtered through natural selection to wind up with what we have
today.
Like any controversy, evolution vs. ID is tainted with a series of
misconceptions and deliberate misrepresentations.
The ID people say evolutionists are out to remove God from the
public schools. They believe this effort is hypocritical because
science is about debating different ideas and selecting the best ones,
and so ID should be taught in schools as an alternative to evolution.
Furthermore, they say, the evolutionists are close-minded, behaving as
if evolution is a fact and not a theory and refusing to let anyone
present any evidence that evolution did not occur.
The evolutionists say the ID folks are trying to reintroduce
creationism in the public schools, with references to God carefully
removed so as not to trigger the constitutional protections that have
nearly eradicated references to God in public settings such as schools.
They say that attacks on evolution are actually attacks on science - in
particular because the term "theory" is used in a derogatory way, as if
it is an incomplete or random idea and not a tested and accepted
explanation of what is seen in nature.
I believe both of these arguments have some merit, but as all
partisan debates (such as Macs vs. PCs) the crux of the matter amounts
to this: People like to tell each other what to do.
Creationists want to tell evolutionists what to believe, and
evolutionists want to explain science to creationists so they will stop
arguing about it.
Most of the debate centers around each group's lack of respect and
understanding of the other group's position. Just like Republicans and
Democrats, I suppose.
As a science teacher, I get asked about these issues from time to
time. I have a few set responses for when there isn't much time to
discuss it.
Predicatability
One point I like to make is that science and religion don't talk
about the same things - miracles only happen once by definition, and if
it isn't repeatable, it can't be scientific - even if it's true. This
honors the beliefs of the faithful while drawing a clear line between
what is scientifically valid and what is not.
Science is about usefulness, not truth per se, although these
often intersect. A theory is useful if it explains past observations,
predicts future observations (through experiments), and doesn't
conflict with other useful theories. A theory is not useful if it
doesn't meet all of these criteria. If it doesn't meet all of
these criteria, it could be a hypothesis (which means it could be
tested but hasn't been yet) or it could just be an interesting idea or
speculation. It might be a scientific speculation or not; but what is
surely is not is a scientific theory.
Theory, Doubt, and Usefulness
Science is based on doubt. There is a small, nonzero population of
serious scientists who believe there may be flaws in the theory of
evolution. (For the record, there are small, nonzero numbers of serious
scientists who think gravity theory is wrong, redshift is not caused by
the motion of galaxies, and psychic phenomena are real.)
Doubts in scientific theories lead to improved theories and the
discarding of old ideas. It does not logically follow, however, that
every doubt everyone has about any theory will eventually lead to the
downfall of the theory.
Everyone knows that evolution theory as it exists today cannot
explain how life first came to be self-replicating, at least in enough
detail for us to create life from scratch in the lab. Just because a
theory is incomplete does not mean it is not useful. We can use
evolution theory to interpret DNA sequences of related species, design
new biologically generated drugs through manipulating the production of
chemicals in bacteria, and explain observations in the fossil
record.
Incompleteness
Perhaps there are gaps in the fossil record, but these gaps do not
disprove the theory out of hand. It merely means we do not know
everything there is to know.
Ptolemy once taught that the earth was in the center of the solar
system and devised a clever, complex, and useful theory of how planets
moved on wheels attached to wheels to make the planets dance around the
sky the way they do. This theory lasted over 1400 years primarily
because it was useful. It worked.
A dramatic and fundamental change in thinking was required that
allowed Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler to rebuild the solar system
into a model that looks like what we know today - and even their model
was incomplete, for it did not account for gravitational perturbations
that eventually led to even more discoveries.
Just because Kepler's model was incomplete doesn't mean the theory
was fundamentally flawed. Just because there were things left
unexplained doesn't mean he didn't know anything useful at all. Even
the earth-centered model is so useful at explaining what we see in the
sky that we still use leftover fragments of it today - every
planetarium is based on an earth-centered universe.
Scientists keep the useful parts and discard the rest.
A real scientist accepts that humans are not gods and can never know
all there is to know. The faithful believe this is an admission of
weakness, tantamount to allowing anything to be possible (even
intelligent design).
The true scientist desires to find out where the incompleteness of
knowledge lies much as a moth is drawn to a flame, even to the point of
seeking out (not ignoring) the unknown, to focus attention on the
weaknesses of theories, fixing things that need explaining,
improvement, or replacement.
This does not mean that a lack of knowledge leads inevitably to the
downfall of a theory as a whole - merely its improvement until it
becomes more useful than it was before.
Observation
Evolution the observation - the changing of species over time
- is a well established fact. You can see all sorts of evidence for it
in both living creatures and the fossil record. I was taught that a
fact is an observation agreed upon by the majority of relevant experts.
A relevant expert has some training in a field and does not use the
word "theory" lightly as many politicians and ID advocates do
today.
Evolution the theory is not as well established because there
are some aspects of the observations that are not well
understood or completely explained.
That distinction between the observations of evolution and the
theory of evolution is all but lost in the noise of the debate we see
playing out in courtrooms around the country. If we were doing our job
as educators, this debate would not be happening, because in both cases
- the observations and the theory - the concept of evolution never
addresses the hand of an intelligent designer one way or
another.
That is because the concept of having supernatural intervention is
untestable. Therefore it is not useful because you cannot use
the knowledge there was a designer to do anything.
Intelligent design may be comforting to believe, but it isn't
useful. How could you do an experiment, make a prediction, or learn
something about the mind of God from the conclusion that you are too
stupid to figure out how God created life and made it evolve?
Intelligent Design Is Faith, Not Science
A scientist sees something he or she doesn't understand and can
accept that as a natural part of the universe. "I may not understand
that now, but someday I will - or someone will."
An advocate for intelligent design sees something he or she doesn't
understand and draws the conclusion, "Because I cannot figure out how
this occurred naturally, a Higher Power (that would be God for those of
us reading between the lines) must have designed it."
This is not inferential logic, as there is no evidence for this
conclusion. It could be used to explain anything and everything. "How
did the killer get out of the locked room?" "I don't know - some higher
power must have plucked him into the 4th dimension."
If you check the two references at the bottom of this article,
you'll see what I mean. The evolution site is packed with specific
examples of evidence used to build evolution theory: real examples of
natural selection, fossil evidence, and evolution of isolated
communities of creatures are explained. (Remember, theories must
explain past observations.)
On the other hand, the vast majority of the content on the IE site
(with self-referring references to articles on the same site, for the
most part) deals with the conspiracy to prohibit the teaching of IE.
There are multiple references to the "clarity of the scientific
evidence of IE" and lots and lots of terms in "quotations", but finding
the evidence itself is tricky.
I zeroed in on a
brochure that purports to explain the evidence for the theory, but
all it said was that scientists use design-compatible language and that
inferential logic is some sort of rule that is used to suppress ID. The
entire argument is, "We can't figure this out, so it must have been
designed."
The Role of Evidence
I am often asked if I "believe" in evolution or the big bang theory.
These theories are not items of faith, so I view this question as
nonsensical.
I am so convinced by the evidence and explanations that I hear that
I come to the conclusion that these theories are, for the most part,
correct. I am so convinced in the theory of gravitation and centripetal
force that I will occasionally ride a roller coaster or fly in an
airplane when neither seems like a rational thing to do on the face of
it.
However, presented with an anti-gravity machine making things float
around in a room on the earth, I would be willing (however painfully)
to reconsider my opinion and learn some new things.
This is the essential difference between science and religion.
Science requires evidence. Science accepts evidence. Religion
does not (by definition the faithful must ignore evidence to the
contrary of faith!)
The Role of Faith
Many years ago, I had some substantial and even angry arguments with
my mother. She claimed that if she did not plant potatoes by the sign
of the moon, they would wither and die. Being an astronomer, I told her
there was no way a full moon could affect potato growth and spouted off
about radiation intensity and magnitudes and so forth, which of course
made no difference whatsoever. It just made my dear mother angry
because she felt I was not respecting her point of view.
Every time she was in a hurry and had not planted by the sign of the
moon, her potatoes failed. Wasn't that enough proof for a skeptic? I
believed that if she was aware she hadn't planted by the sign of the
moon, the potatoes would die because she wouldn't tend them properly -
a self-fulfilling prophecy.
In my later years, as I grew more appreciative of my mother's
efforts raising me (a concept commonly referred to as wisdom), I came
to realize that as a legitimate scientist it was entirely possible that
there was some sort of effect on plants from moonlight, even if I
personally didn't understand the mechanism.
The Role of Respect
I still don't think there is, but I became willing to admit that I
don't know everything. So I decided to be more useful than
controversial and explained phases to my mother with flashlights and
tennis balls,. I told her how many days there were between one major
phase and the next, and how tides of earth and air were caused by the
moon as well as in water, and allowed as how there could be an effect
on the growth of potatoes and the timing of their planting, even if I
didn't understand it. Then there was peace between us.
Her beliefs weren't scientific, but they were part of her, and I
loved her, so I respected her interpretations and respected them. Mind
you, I am not saying I was persuaded by her ideas - and I won't be
until I see a scientifically controlled study that shows a correlation
- but I learned that I could respect them and her and stop arguing
about it. Her ideas were not generally useful in the sense they could
be widely used, but they were comforting, and there are some things
science has no business interfering with.
ID and Evolution in the Classroom
Of course, that's a two-way street.
So what am I saying with respect to ID? I think I can respect the
religious beliefs of people while not believing them myself. I can
respect ID as a concept. I could even believe it to be true myself
(gasp!), but since it is not scientific it has no business being
taught as an "alternative theory" to evolution.
On the other hand, as long as it is not represented as science, I
have no problem discussing the concept of ID in the classroom - even a
science classroom.
Science will not win this argument by suppressing discussion. If
scientific thought is to stand on its own, it has to stand against all
comers, regardless of whether or not those challenges are scientific in
and of themselves.
I am an advocate for individual professionalism in teaching. My
personal opinion is this: As long as there is no coursework depending
on one's beliefs, a teacher ought to be able to discuss any idea
in the classroom if it helps students learn how to think. I'd rather
have my kids taught by an ID "believer" who could teach evolution
competently than an incompetent person who sleeps with a copy of Darwin
under his pillow.
It's a poor commentary on the state of our schools that both sides
of this debate believe that they have to legislate or mandate their way
into this debate (with stickers on books for crying out loud!) because
they think the teacher in incapable of handling the debate in a
competent way in the classroom.
In other words: I like to think most of us in the classroom are more
concerned about what you know and can do with that knowledge than if
you believe exactly what we believe. At least I hope that's true.
is a longtime Mac user. He was using digital sensors on Apple II computers in the 1980's and has networked computers in his classroom since before the internet existed. In 2006 he was selected at the California Computer Using Educator's teacher of the year. His students have used NASA space probes and regularly participate in piloting new materials for NASA. He is the author of two books and numerous articles and scientific papers. He currently teaches astronomy and physics in California, where he lives with his twin sons, Jony and Ben.< And there's still a Mac G3 in his classroom which finds occasional use.
