STR Ambassador
December 28th 2003, 05:06 PM
The Real Issue of Scopes
I was reading an article someone sent me from the Orange County Register, July 27, 1994. The title is "Teach Science as Science: A Teacher's Lawsuit Revisits the Scopes Trial." It refers to the case of John Peloza who has allegedly insisted on his right to teach creationism to biology students in the Capistrano Valley Unified School District.
Let me read you the closing half of the editorial piece, and then I'd like to respond.
Of course, groups pushing narrow religious agendas will always have their occasional successes with pliable legislatures. But the Peloza case is especially disturbing because it arises from within the very heart of a school system. Here is a public school science teacher, now reassigned to teach health and physical education, who has rejected the premise of scientific method. The theory of natural selection is not, after all, merely one wild card idea among others competing for acceptance. It is not just a theory, but a body of ideas that have been thoroughly confirmed, derived from solid techniques of scientific inquiry. That process should be held up as a model for learning. Young people need to know that the truths we derive about the physical universe must come from reason and scientific experimentation, not dogma. Science cannot be regarded as one possible methodology for determining how things came to be alongside whatever the flat earth society or anybody else might postulate. At a time when religious zealots are conducting stealth campaigns to take over school boards, this challenge from someone on the front lines in the classroom should be resolved with a ringing affirmation from the courts. Educators have a right and a duty to teach science as science.
I suspect--and I'm not thoroughly up on this situation--that this is a misrepresentation of the facts. My recollection is not that Peloza wanted to teach creation, but that he wanted to critique evolution according to the official guidelines listed in the California educational manual. Even so, that's not really consequential for my remarks today. As I've often said, the ideas are more important than the details. The basic issue is that this piece says some strong things about the creation/evolution controversy in the educational system.
There were so many things said here that deserve response, I could take an hour talking about it. I'm just going to highlight a couple of things. As is frequently the case when newspaper editorials respond to this issue of evolution and creation, not only do they misrepresent the so-called religious side--which I think was done here, and I'll try to correct that--but they misunderstand the nature of the scientific issues.
Regarding the religious implications of the fight against evolution, clearly this issue does have religious implications, but that blade cuts both ways. If Carl Sagan is right, then "the cosmos is all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be." That has profound implications for metaphysics, for religion. And his comment, accepted by many as science, is no less religious in its implications than Peloza's viewpoint. Religion and science cannot be kept apart, because dogmatic assertions about scientific matters often have metaphysical implications. Note Sagan's remark as an example.
Anyone, by the way, who looks closely at the details of this debate on a more sophisticated level--a level that the media consistently avoids in their coverage--will discover that the questions raised about evolution pertain to the alleged scientific facts themselves and the interpretation of those facts.
This is another misrepresentation in this article. The objections raised by people like Peloza, are objections that pertain first and foremost to science and not to religion. The objections I raise to evolution are scientific ones, not religious ones. Those in the philosophy of science and those who are scientists who object to evolution do not object on religious grounds, principally. They are objecting precisely on scientific grounds.
Now, what about the theory of natural selection? The editorial says, "The theory of natural selection is not, after all, merely one wild card idea among others competing for acceptance. It is not just a theory, but a body of ideas that have been thoroughly confirmed." Even if the statement were correct, that natural selection has been proven, so what? That doesn't take us anywhere at all in this discussion, and I'll tell you why.
(Keep in mind, by the way, that my remarks right now
have to do with the nature of the debate itself, not the content of the debate. I'm not here arguing in favor of creationism per se, or in favor of some kind of design. I'm just talking about this objection to Christians--or anyone who believes in some kind of design alternative to the origins question--wanting to be players in the scientific discussion on origins. The Register is saying that's not a legitimate alternative because science teachers should teach science as science, science is equal with evolution, and you can't bring any of these other "religious" issues into the discussion.)
I think the argument in this sense is miscast: any proof of the theory of natural selection is nearly irrelevant to this particular discussion. The theory of natural selection is not in itself at issue. The idea that only the fittest survive in the struggle for existence may be true. Even if I accept that, this is an utterly unremarkable observation that's not a point of contention in this conflict of ideas. If this observation were the only thing in question, few would lift an eyebrow.
The earthshaking suggestion by Darwin was not that the fit survive, but rather how much this observation explains about the physical world. The offense of Darwinism isn't natural selection per se. Rather, the offense is that purely naturalistic processes--with natural selection as the mechanism--can alone explain everything--not just minor adaptive variations, but the totality of the biosphere and all its complexity and diversity, even the mystery of life itself.
In fact, so stupendous is the creative power of natural selection that it frequently is referred to somewhat oxymoronically as the "miracle of Mother Nature." It's an oxymoron because there is a contradiction there. Mother Nature doesn't have miracles; she's purely naturalistic. But that's what's objectionable, not natural selection itself, but the radical extrapolation of the mechanism to make it capable of explaining everything. Even then the question isn't principally "Is it offensive to religious people?" The real questions is: Is this extrapolation a legitimate scientific inference from the facts, or a leap of faith itself?
Let me underscore that the issue here is not religious dogma. The issue is science, in my view, and in the view of those creationists who are, as I mentioned, discussing this issue on a more sophisticated level. Educators like Peloza aren't the only ones that are concerned here. In fact, the best material currently critiquing evolution is not coming from religious people, but from inside the scientific community.
Following the complete failure in the late 80's of the Origin of Life Conference in Berkeley to produce a plausible scenario for how life itself chemically evolved, Dr. Robert Shapiro, the eminent chemist from New York University and an expert in his field, wrote a book entitled Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth. ("Creation" here refers to biochemical evolution.) Shapiro is an educated skeptic. In his book, he decimates the reigning ideas of how life could have evolved from non-life.
Michael Denton, in his book Evolution a Theory in Crisis, shows that the original scientific objections to evolution that faced Darwin and were argued powerfully by his contemporaries still apply--even after more than 100 years of scientific research and progress.
Both of these books were written by non-religious people. They were not raising religious objections at all. Their concerns are strictly scientific.
Shapiro remains an evolutionist, hoping that the future will turn up more evidence for biochemical evolution that the past has been unable to produce. Michael Denton ends his analysis with this statement: "The Darwinian theory is the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century," and then adds, "like the Genesis-based cosmology which it replaced." You have no friends of religion here, yet in both cases each offers scientifically strident and compelling arguments against the plausibility of natural processes explaining all of the complexity that we see in our biological world. It's just not plausible, they argue. These men are inside scientific community, not the outside.
it is true that evolution is accepted by many scientists, but not all. Whether it's accepted because of scientific evidence or for other more philosophical reasons--which Peloza calls "evolutionary religion"--is precisely what this debate is about. To cast this debate the light of "religious zealots conducting stealth campaigns," as the editorial does, mischaracterizes it.
This spin on the debate skirts the issue entirely. It is easier to dismiss as flat-earth religion any objections to evolution rather than to engage the issues themselves in public discourse. Some people say, "Well, I don't want to dignify the opposition by even engaging in reasonable discourse, as if this is something that could be discussed reasonably."
It's much easier to simply dismiss objections by calling names. "Oh you flat-earth people, you're ignorant. What do you know? I don't even want to talk to you." But once they do that, they push the other side out of the game by dogmatically refusing even to consider the options, or at least consider a critique of their own view. That's not education.
The Orange County Register editorial suggests that when the challenge comes on the front lines in the classroom, "it should be resolved with a ringing affirmation from the courts." That's right, call out the militia. That's how to resolve this. That will solve the problem. You can assure victory this way. Win the game by using the men in black robes to run the other team off the field.
It seems to me that the challenges in the classroom, since they are challenges that are scientific--that's what the real challenge is, that's the beef, not religious dogma, science--the challenges in the classroom should not be solved in the courtroom because, after all, courts don't determine what is true. They only determine what is legal. Classrooms, however, are supposedly the arena where truth can be discovered. Maybe knowledge and truth would be better served by an even-handed analysis of the facts in an open debate with full disclosure rather than by strong-arm tactics deciding which ideas get to play in the game.
This editorial cites the first Scopes trial. But wasn't that precisely what the trial was all about, not having the law bar a free and informed interplay of ideas? Let's have a free play of ideas, and let's let the best idea win on its own merit. That's the real lesson of Scopes.
I was reading an article someone sent me from the Orange County Register, July 27, 1994. The title is "Teach Science as Science: A Teacher's Lawsuit Revisits the Scopes Trial." It refers to the case of John Peloza who has allegedly insisted on his right to teach creationism to biology students in the Capistrano Valley Unified School District.
Let me read you the closing half of the editorial piece, and then I'd like to respond.
Of course, groups pushing narrow religious agendas will always have their occasional successes with pliable legislatures. But the Peloza case is especially disturbing because it arises from within the very heart of a school system. Here is a public school science teacher, now reassigned to teach health and physical education, who has rejected the premise of scientific method. The theory of natural selection is not, after all, merely one wild card idea among others competing for acceptance. It is not just a theory, but a body of ideas that have been thoroughly confirmed, derived from solid techniques of scientific inquiry. That process should be held up as a model for learning. Young people need to know that the truths we derive about the physical universe must come from reason and scientific experimentation, not dogma. Science cannot be regarded as one possible methodology for determining how things came to be alongside whatever the flat earth society or anybody else might postulate. At a time when religious zealots are conducting stealth campaigns to take over school boards, this challenge from someone on the front lines in the classroom should be resolved with a ringing affirmation from the courts. Educators have a right and a duty to teach science as science.
I suspect--and I'm not thoroughly up on this situation--that this is a misrepresentation of the facts. My recollection is not that Peloza wanted to teach creation, but that he wanted to critique evolution according to the official guidelines listed in the California educational manual. Even so, that's not really consequential for my remarks today. As I've often said, the ideas are more important than the details. The basic issue is that this piece says some strong things about the creation/evolution controversy in the educational system.
There were so many things said here that deserve response, I could take an hour talking about it. I'm just going to highlight a couple of things. As is frequently the case when newspaper editorials respond to this issue of evolution and creation, not only do they misrepresent the so-called religious side--which I think was done here, and I'll try to correct that--but they misunderstand the nature of the scientific issues.
Regarding the religious implications of the fight against evolution, clearly this issue does have religious implications, but that blade cuts both ways. If Carl Sagan is right, then "the cosmos is all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be." That has profound implications for metaphysics, for religion. And his comment, accepted by many as science, is no less religious in its implications than Peloza's viewpoint. Religion and science cannot be kept apart, because dogmatic assertions about scientific matters often have metaphysical implications. Note Sagan's remark as an example.
Anyone, by the way, who looks closely at the details of this debate on a more sophisticated level--a level that the media consistently avoids in their coverage--will discover that the questions raised about evolution pertain to the alleged scientific facts themselves and the interpretation of those facts.
This is another misrepresentation in this article. The objections raised by people like Peloza, are objections that pertain first and foremost to science and not to religion. The objections I raise to evolution are scientific ones, not religious ones. Those in the philosophy of science and those who are scientists who object to evolution do not object on religious grounds, principally. They are objecting precisely on scientific grounds.
Now, what about the theory of natural selection? The editorial says, "The theory of natural selection is not, after all, merely one wild card idea among others competing for acceptance. It is not just a theory, but a body of ideas that have been thoroughly confirmed." Even if the statement were correct, that natural selection has been proven, so what? That doesn't take us anywhere at all in this discussion, and I'll tell you why.
(Keep in mind, by the way, that my remarks right now
have to do with the nature of the debate itself, not the content of the debate. I'm not here arguing in favor of creationism per se, or in favor of some kind of design. I'm just talking about this objection to Christians--or anyone who believes in some kind of design alternative to the origins question--wanting to be players in the scientific discussion on origins. The Register is saying that's not a legitimate alternative because science teachers should teach science as science, science is equal with evolution, and you can't bring any of these other "religious" issues into the discussion.)
I think the argument in this sense is miscast: any proof of the theory of natural selection is nearly irrelevant to this particular discussion. The theory of natural selection is not in itself at issue. The idea that only the fittest survive in the struggle for existence may be true. Even if I accept that, this is an utterly unremarkable observation that's not a point of contention in this conflict of ideas. If this observation were the only thing in question, few would lift an eyebrow.
The earthshaking suggestion by Darwin was not that the fit survive, but rather how much this observation explains about the physical world. The offense of Darwinism isn't natural selection per se. Rather, the offense is that purely naturalistic processes--with natural selection as the mechanism--can alone explain everything--not just minor adaptive variations, but the totality of the biosphere and all its complexity and diversity, even the mystery of life itself.
In fact, so stupendous is the creative power of natural selection that it frequently is referred to somewhat oxymoronically as the "miracle of Mother Nature." It's an oxymoron because there is a contradiction there. Mother Nature doesn't have miracles; she's purely naturalistic. But that's what's objectionable, not natural selection itself, but the radical extrapolation of the mechanism to make it capable of explaining everything. Even then the question isn't principally "Is it offensive to religious people?" The real questions is: Is this extrapolation a legitimate scientific inference from the facts, or a leap of faith itself?
Let me underscore that the issue here is not religious dogma. The issue is science, in my view, and in the view of those creationists who are, as I mentioned, discussing this issue on a more sophisticated level. Educators like Peloza aren't the only ones that are concerned here. In fact, the best material currently critiquing evolution is not coming from religious people, but from inside the scientific community.
Following the complete failure in the late 80's of the Origin of Life Conference in Berkeley to produce a plausible scenario for how life itself chemically evolved, Dr. Robert Shapiro, the eminent chemist from New York University and an expert in his field, wrote a book entitled Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth. ("Creation" here refers to biochemical evolution.) Shapiro is an educated skeptic. In his book, he decimates the reigning ideas of how life could have evolved from non-life.
Michael Denton, in his book Evolution a Theory in Crisis, shows that the original scientific objections to evolution that faced Darwin and were argued powerfully by his contemporaries still apply--even after more than 100 years of scientific research and progress.
Both of these books were written by non-religious people. They were not raising religious objections at all. Their concerns are strictly scientific.
Shapiro remains an evolutionist, hoping that the future will turn up more evidence for biochemical evolution that the past has been unable to produce. Michael Denton ends his analysis with this statement: "The Darwinian theory is the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century," and then adds, "like the Genesis-based cosmology which it replaced." You have no friends of religion here, yet in both cases each offers scientifically strident and compelling arguments against the plausibility of natural processes explaining all of the complexity that we see in our biological world. It's just not plausible, they argue. These men are inside scientific community, not the outside.
it is true that evolution is accepted by many scientists, but not all. Whether it's accepted because of scientific evidence or for other more philosophical reasons--which Peloza calls "evolutionary religion"--is precisely what this debate is about. To cast this debate the light of "religious zealots conducting stealth campaigns," as the editorial does, mischaracterizes it.
This spin on the debate skirts the issue entirely. It is easier to dismiss as flat-earth religion any objections to evolution rather than to engage the issues themselves in public discourse. Some people say, "Well, I don't want to dignify the opposition by even engaging in reasonable discourse, as if this is something that could be discussed reasonably."
It's much easier to simply dismiss objections by calling names. "Oh you flat-earth people, you're ignorant. What do you know? I don't even want to talk to you." But once they do that, they push the other side out of the game by dogmatically refusing even to consider the options, or at least consider a critique of their own view. That's not education.
The Orange County Register editorial suggests that when the challenge comes on the front lines in the classroom, "it should be resolved with a ringing affirmation from the courts." That's right, call out the militia. That's how to resolve this. That will solve the problem. You can assure victory this way. Win the game by using the men in black robes to run the other team off the field.
It seems to me that the challenges in the classroom, since they are challenges that are scientific--that's what the real challenge is, that's the beef, not religious dogma, science--the challenges in the classroom should not be solved in the courtroom because, after all, courts don't determine what is true. They only determine what is legal. Classrooms, however, are supposedly the arena where truth can be discovered. Maybe knowledge and truth would be better served by an even-handed analysis of the facts in an open debate with full disclosure rather than by strong-arm tactics deciding which ideas get to play in the game.
This editorial cites the first Scopes trial. But wasn't that precisely what the trial was all about, not having the law bar a free and informed interplay of ideas? Let's have a free play of ideas, and let's let the best idea win on its own merit. That's the real lesson of Scopes.