Thursday, October 09, 2008
Political Mayhem Thursday with Guest Blogger Lane!
I promised the Os that I'd do something on criminal law for Political Philosophy Mayhem Thursday (Now With More Lane!), but as (your) luck would have it, events have intervened to prevent this. Yea, the stars have aligned, the right incenses burned, the correct incantations have been said, and I present you with the result: a piece on my second-favorite legal subject, constitutional law (sorry, Professor G. That's just how I roll.).
Two Baylor professors, Perry Glanzer and Wesley Null, wrote an opinion column for the Austin American Statesman about the most recent of the culture war battles being fought by the State Board of Education. As a fan of education, the child of educators for several generations, a Baylor alum, and an amateur student of both philosophy and science, I've taken a special shine to this issue. Not least because last summer I was (briefly) a volunteer for the Texas Freedom Network, the best doggone bumdiggity pro-separation of church and state group in Texas.
In a nutshell, the current SBOE is run by crazy people that would rather use Texas students as pawns in a cheap political ploy to score points with far-right voters than, oh, educate them.
This fight is of course over that honored and time-worn tradition that, eighty plus years since the Scopes Trial, we still can't get right -- evolution. The SBOE wants to adopt a curriculum that includes so-called "weaknesses of evolution" in biology textbooks. Now, I'm all for a complex and nuanced presentation of the theory of evolution, abiogenesis, and so on. I think some trends in evolutionary studies (like evolutionary psychology ought to be rightfully criticized as insane. And I'm no fan of scientism, the view that all meaningful questions in the world can be answered by science. I'm very vocal about my disdain for philosophical naturalism.
But I am a fan of fidelity in education, and a proper division between scientific questions and non-scientific questions. Glanzer and Null's argument, reduced to a single line, is that by keeping science classes "pure" science, we are advancing an ideological agenda, and to avoid this, we should teach the complex and nuanced history of science, theology and philosophy... in science classes.
Nix that last clause, and I agree with it. But the philosophy of science is not a proper subject for scientific study; science studies the empirical, those things that can be observed, quantified and measured. Your biology class should content itself to studying genetic growth and change in the empirical world. If you wish to know about the interesting intersection of science, philosophy and theology, that should be reserved for a philosophy class when the philosophy of science is discussed.
In short, Glanzer and Null argue effectively that science without any sense of historicity is myopic, with which I agree. But the correct place to provide that historicity is not in the same class where you're teaching the theory and practice of science as an empirical discipline.
So, theologists: get your noses out of biology classes, and devote your time to developing a curriculum for teaching high schoolers about philosophy instead. Any attempt to inject not-science into a science classroom invariably strips the intersubjectivity from empirical inquiry and starts making tacit, uncritical value judgments (hint: that's not a good thing), because it violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Teaching science, and only science, in a science class, neither favors nor disfavors religion. That's square with the Constitution. But allowing a value judgment about non-scientific matters, such as philosophical or theological matters, to be interjected into science does, whether that is the Christianity-heavy American creationism, Hindu creationism, Islamic Creationism, or just plain old crazy creationism.
Comments:
<< Home
I've always said- find one way to observe, measure, and test creationism/Intelligent Design, and I will gladly fight for it to be included in the science classroom. But since those things are by definition not measurable or testable, they do not belong in the science classroom, as they are antithetical to the scientific method.
Believe them if you want to, that choice is yours, but keep them out of places they don't belong.
Believe them if you want to, that choice is yours, but keep them out of places they don't belong.
I don't really see how this is going to be debatable. The only people I'd expect to want the things combined would be religious fanatics that can't stand the idea of learning a little bit about how the world works and not including God as the ultimate source for it all.
It is wrong to act like creationists and ID people are "crazy." Some very rational people, including Baylor Professors (ie, Fred Beckwith) and a candidate for the Vice-President of the United States support these ideas.
# posted by 
: 9:23 AM
: 9:23 AM
I do think, though, that the philosophy of science class you describe should be required for science majors, not philosophy majors.
A "philosophy of science" class would be fine for College students. In fact, I took two sections of a class called "Cultural Chemistry, Chemistry for non-science majors" (aka Chemistry for poets) at W&M. We learned the Table of Elements AND we read books about the discovery of DNA, Madame Curie, a book by a guy named Bronofsky or something like that, and other books. It was fascinating.
But College and high school are totally different settings. I agree completely with Lane's thoughts presented here on how science should be taught in grades K-12.
The world is full of mystery. But in order to truly appreciate the mystery, you need to know as many facts as possible. That way you can separate the rumors, lies and gossip from REAL mystery.
But College and high school are totally different settings. I agree completely with Lane's thoughts presented here on how science should be taught in grades K-12.
The world is full of mystery. But in order to truly appreciate the mystery, you need to know as many facts as possible. That way you can separate the rumors, lies and gossip from REAL mystery.
# posted by : 10:38 AM
: 10:38 AM
I was a math minor at Baylor, and my only complaint was that there was not enough God in my differential equations class.
# posted by : 11:48 AM
: 11:48 AM
Lane: The problem with your vintage, secularist argument is it incorrectly and dishonestly places all improper motive on Christians. Admittedly, Christians want to interject Christ/creation into science because we want the teaching of our existence to be a two sided coin. The knee-jerk, unoriginal response from your team is that "science studies the empirical, those things that can be observed, quantified and measured," i.e., we would never reach beyond the cover of our textbooks and teach philosophy or theology. We, unlike the fanatical right, care about the establishment clause.
You are burying your head in the sand if you believe science teachers/professors are only interested in petri dishes and ribosomes. They, too, have a worldview that includes some theory as to how we arrived as Razorites and they, too, are interested in teaching it. You, however, chalk their theory up as "science" or "measurable evolutionary principles" and hide behind the word "science." But rewind the tape far enough and, at the end (beginning, for our purposes) of the day, both Christianity and whatever scientific theory you believe brought us here -- are religions. That is, no theory has empirical evidence as to our existence; no theory can be observed; no theory can be quantified and measured. All theories require -- brace yourself -- faith.
So, if you want to remove all religion, philosophy and theology from science - fine. But don't offer up some (macro)evolutionary theory that requires a ginormous leap of faith, mislabel it as measurable and testable, and shove it down our children's throats. That's not empirical inquiry.
Despite liberaldespot's mindless remark that religious fanatics "can't stand the idea of learning a little bit about how the world works," we have the intellectual honesty to admit 1) we don't know how the world works and neither do you, and 2) both sides of the aisle have motives.
Until science, as taught in our schools, is as pure as you define it, then I fully support flipping the coin over.
You are burying your head in the sand if you believe science teachers/professors are only interested in petri dishes and ribosomes. They, too, have a worldview that includes some theory as to how we arrived as Razorites and they, too, are interested in teaching it. You, however, chalk their theory up as "science" or "measurable evolutionary principles" and hide behind the word "science." But rewind the tape far enough and, at the end (beginning, for our purposes) of the day, both Christianity and whatever scientific theory you believe brought us here -- are religions. That is, no theory has empirical evidence as to our existence; no theory can be observed; no theory can be quantified and measured. All theories require -- brace yourself -- faith.
So, if you want to remove all religion, philosophy and theology from science - fine. But don't offer up some (macro)evolutionary theory that requires a ginormous leap of faith, mislabel it as measurable and testable, and shove it down our children's throats. That's not empirical inquiry.
Despite liberaldespot's mindless remark that religious fanatics "can't stand the idea of learning a little bit about how the world works," we have the intellectual honesty to admit 1) we don't know how the world works and neither do you, and 2) both sides of the aisle have motives.
Until science, as taught in our schools, is as pure as you define it, then I fully support flipping the coin over.
# posted by : 12:02 PM
: 12:02 PM
What is this, "Political Everybody Agree with each other Thursday"? Can't we find one person that thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution? Isn't there one person who will take up the banner?
(AC/DC's Thunderstruck can be heard in the distance; Jim Ross leans in to his microphone): "Wait, is that? No, it can't be...is that RRL's music? It is! Good god this is unbelievable, RRL is making his way to the ring..."
No, I'm not going to offer a passionate defense of creation science. Though I do tend to agree with Anon that treating evolution as more than a theory turns science into religion. But I'm not sure that means we should also teach creation science.
I really just couldn't see letting a Thursday go without saying something. Even if it was mostly a mock WWE wrestling intro.
I will say it makes me chuckle that a group calling itself the Texas Freedom Network is trying to figure out ways to keep particular viewpoints out of the classroom. Since when did "freedom" involve the control of information?
(AC/DC's Thunderstruck can be heard in the distance; Jim Ross leans in to his microphone): "Wait, is that? No, it can't be...is that RRL's music? It is! Good god this is unbelievable, RRL is making his way to the ring..."
No, I'm not going to offer a passionate defense of creation science. Though I do tend to agree with Anon that treating evolution as more than a theory turns science into religion. But I'm not sure that means we should also teach creation science.
I really just couldn't see letting a Thursday go without saying something. Even if it was mostly a mock WWE wrestling intro.
I will say it makes me chuckle that a group calling itself the Texas Freedom Network is trying to figure out ways to keep particular viewpoints out of the classroom. Since when did "freedom" involve the control of information?
# posted by : 12:37 PM
: 12:37 PM
indeed. i grew up in a jesuit catholic school here in the philippines.
i appreciated the fact that our science class was devoted purely to science. evolution, biology, all that. and religious ideas were pursued in a separate religion class.
furthermore, we were taught that the two may be reconciled.
i appreciated the fact that our science class was devoted purely to science. evolution, biology, all that. and religious ideas were pursued in a separate religion class.
furthermore, we were taught that the two may be reconciled.
# posted by : 12:44 PM
: 12:44 PM
I went to a private lutheran school for a few years after a few incidents made me unwelcome at the public schools. We had religion in the mornings and science in the afternoon. We never mixed religion with science. We were in very basic stuff; however, they still never felt the need to say their God created the cell or atom while it was science class or to interject any religious view on science. I'd hardly say it was a mindless remark to say the two can be totally separate. I never said I know all the answers; however, there is no need to try and fill in the holes in science with religion just because it is a religious school.
Trust me, Mr. Davis, my 10th Grade Biology teacher, who taught us about evolution was not trying to push any religious or anti-religious views.
If there was any point to his classroom style it was to get jollies making the cheerleaders in our class giggle and jiggle.
If there was any point to his classroom style it was to get jollies making the cheerleaders in our class giggle and jiggle.
# posted by : 5:19 PM
: 5:19 PM
Let me preface my comment with this: I have studied the theory of evolution, particularly the theory of human evolution (I wanted to be an archaeologist before I ended up as an attorney).
I don't think Darwin's theory of evolution as the origin of species is really science because it can't be tested or observed. Just like creationism can't be tested or observed. So really, neither of them belong in a science class. Both of them fit better in a "philosophy of science" class.
I don't dispute that species adapt and natural selection happens. But until I see a person like Wolverine, Cyclops, etc. . . . or a trout sprout lungs or legs, I won't change my mind that Darwin's theory is not science.
My biggest problem with the theory of evolution as the orgin of species, especially as the origin of mankind, is that it presupposes gradual change over a long period of time. But the the differences between purported species of mankind jump drastically without transitional species (at least without significant evidence of transitional species: A jaw bone, skull, or femur won't cut it for me to say, "This bone belonged to a species in between homo habilas and homo erectus).
I'm also concerned that anthropologists make huge assumptions from little evidence. I was watching a program about neanderthals in Europe, and the experts described neanderthal culture and practices in great detail, and then he admitted that all of the neanderthal artifacts could fit into the back of a pickup truck.
Sounds like a good imagination to me.
Do I know where homo habilis, homo erectus, and neanderthals fit in in the grand scheme of things? Nope.
But there is one thing I do know: Their existence does not threaten me or my belief that God created the Earth and all things in it.
I don't think Darwin's theory of evolution as the origin of species is really science because it can't be tested or observed. Just like creationism can't be tested or observed. So really, neither of them belong in a science class. Both of them fit better in a "philosophy of science" class.
I don't dispute that species adapt and natural selection happens. But until I see a person like Wolverine, Cyclops, etc. . . . or a trout sprout lungs or legs, I won't change my mind that Darwin's theory is not science.
My biggest problem with the theory of evolution as the orgin of species, especially as the origin of mankind, is that it presupposes gradual change over a long period of time. But the the differences between purported species of mankind jump drastically without transitional species (at least without significant evidence of transitional species: A jaw bone, skull, or femur won't cut it for me to say, "This bone belonged to a species in between homo habilas and homo erectus).
I'm also concerned that anthropologists make huge assumptions from little evidence. I was watching a program about neanderthals in Europe, and the experts described neanderthal culture and practices in great detail, and then he admitted that all of the neanderthal artifacts could fit into the back of a pickup truck.
Sounds like a good imagination to me.
Do I know where homo habilis, homo erectus, and neanderthals fit in in the grand scheme of things? Nope.
But there is one thing I do know: Their existence does not threaten me or my belief that God created the Earth and all things in it.
Glanzer and Null are void. This is politics. Always has been. Always will be.
As for Beckwith ...
Ron
As for Beckwith ...
Ron
# posted by : 7:17 PM
: 7:17 PM
Craig- you make the assumption that scientists significantly differentiate between macroevolution, which is the change throughout history, with microevolution, which is the observable change we can see from generation to generation. However, most scientists agree that they are essentially one and the same, with microevolution being a small-scale version of what happens on a macro level. The fact that perfect transitional species have not been found is not dispositive of the theory of macroevolution; rather, it's indicative that these changes DO occur gradually over time, which makes it less likely that significantly different species will be found to "bridge the gaps," so to speak. As for the Origin of Species being science, it is but one of many many pieces in the puzzle that biologists, anthropologists, chemists, and others have put together known as "The Theory of Evolution." Evidence in mitochondrial DNA, regressive traits, vestigial elements, and many other things suggest that life on earth has a common ancestor.
Evolution is a complex yet comprehensive theory that seeks to explain the observations we've made about the nature of carbon-based life on Earth. It's not nearly as compartmentalized as you seem to purport.
Evolution is a complex yet comprehensive theory that seeks to explain the observations we've made about the nature of carbon-based life on Earth. It's not nearly as compartmentalized as you seem to purport.
I think a large part of what some people miss is that "theory" in science is not the same thing as "theory" in everyday language. One means that it's supported by tests and evidence. The other means it's a guess - a well-educated guess perhaps, but a guess. Einstein came up with the theory of relativity, but no one disputes teaching *that* in science class. The only difference between relativity and evolution is that one offends the ideas of creationists.
There is no "theory of creationism" in the scientific community... there is a belief in creationism. And yes, there are scientists who believe in the Bible. But they keep that out of their research.
I don't regard evidence of a neanderthal (which actually, they're saying is a divergent species, and not one of our ancestors) and australopithecus as minimal. We're talking about fossils from 500,000 years ago. I'm shocked we find anything.
Now, if we find anything - such as a man who died when he was 969 - I will revise my theory. And that's the key difference - scientific theories bend and change with the facts and evidence. Religious beliefs do not, because the "facts" have already been set out in a book which will never be rewritten.
There is no "theory of creationism" in the scientific community... there is a belief in creationism. And yes, there are scientists who believe in the Bible. But they keep that out of their research.
I don't regard evidence of a neanderthal (which actually, they're saying is a divergent species, and not one of our ancestors) and australopithecus as minimal. We're talking about fossils from 500,000 years ago. I'm shocked we find anything.
Now, if we find anything - such as a man who died when he was 969 - I will revise my theory. And that's the key difference - scientific theories bend and change with the facts and evidence. Religious beliefs do not, because the "facts" have already been set out in a book which will never be rewritten.
@anon 11:02
Actually, if you'll reread the post, and especially my link about how much I dislike scientism, you'll see that I've allayed your fears that I'm being unfair to Christians. I don't think we ought to teach kids that belief in evolution compels naturalism (because it doesn't, and naturalism is stupid, anyway) or that evolution "requires" any particular worldview. The theory of evolution is perfectly consonant with any metaphysical worldview, precisely because as an empirical theory it has no metaphysical implications.
In other words, theories don't require faith. Metaphysics (quite often) does the sort of belief that faith implies. I agree that there is no difference in naturalism and theism as both based in faith, and that any science teacher telling their children that the theory of evolution proves there is no God is also in violation of the principle I've set out here.
@ Craig:
I encourage you to read the TalkOrigins website I've linked too. Long with LDT's post, it provides some clarification on some commonly-held misconceptions about the theory of evolution, what it is, and what it claims. I don't think there is really any dissonance between the idea that God created the world and has a telos for man and the theory of evolution. That's exactly what makes the whole ID debate so frustrating for lots of people: a teleological argument just isn't about the origins and evolution of life. It's an attempt to prove that God exists.
Which is why it is philosophy, and not science, I argue. But don't get me wrong: I think we all ought to learn about teleological arguments and the intersection between religion and science. But I do think that a science class is probably not the best place to teach that sort of perspective, because the theory and praxis of science should be ideologically neutral, even if (in reality) scientists and worldviews are not so neutral. More than that, I think the Constitution demands that it be that way.
Actually, if you'll reread the post, and especially my link about how much I dislike scientism, you'll see that I've allayed your fears that I'm being unfair to Christians. I don't think we ought to teach kids that belief in evolution compels naturalism (because it doesn't, and naturalism is stupid, anyway) or that evolution "requires" any particular worldview. The theory of evolution is perfectly consonant with any metaphysical worldview, precisely because as an empirical theory it has no metaphysical implications.
In other words, theories don't require faith. Metaphysics (quite often) does the sort of belief that faith implies. I agree that there is no difference in naturalism and theism as both based in faith, and that any science teacher telling their children that the theory of evolution proves there is no God is also in violation of the principle I've set out here.
@ Craig:
I encourage you to read the TalkOrigins website I've linked too. Long with LDT's post, it provides some clarification on some commonly-held misconceptions about the theory of evolution, what it is, and what it claims. I don't think there is really any dissonance between the idea that God created the world and has a telos for man and the theory of evolution. That's exactly what makes the whole ID debate so frustrating for lots of people: a teleological argument just isn't about the origins and evolution of life. It's an attempt to prove that God exists.
Which is why it is philosophy, and not science, I argue. But don't get me wrong: I think we all ought to learn about teleological arguments and the intersection between religion and science. But I do think that a science class is probably not the best place to teach that sort of perspective, because the theory and praxis of science should be ideologically neutral, even if (in reality) scientists and worldviews are not so neutral. More than that, I think the Constitution demands that it be that way.
I'm not advocating the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. In fact, I'd prefer that they don't because I don't want a public school teacher doing my job as a parent. It's my job to teach my children about God. It's my job to introduce them to Him. Mine and mine alone. Then they can choose to accept Him or reject Him.
All I'm saying that evolution as the origin of species belongs with the other creation stories which people may accept or reject.
As for the Constituion, I'm not sure teaching about God in a public school establishes any religion or infringes on someone's right to the free exercise of religion. But like I said, matters of faith belong to me as a parent.
But if you would like to know about the evil the Framers sought to avoid, study reformation era Europe and early Mormon history. I'm a product of both. My dad's side were Anabaptist Mennonites who were driven from place to place until they wound up in the United States. And on my mom's side, my ancestors were Mormons who came to the United States. The hard thing is that after they got here both my Mennnonite ancestors and Mormon ancestors suffered severe persecution from the government and the public at large. In fact, the governor of Missouri, Lilburn Boggs, ordered the extermination of all Mormons. And during World War I, my grandpa had to change his name from Heinrich to Henry to protect him while other Mennonites were thrown into prison because they were pacifists and had German names, even though none of them or their ancestors had lived in a Germanic country for almost two hundred years.
If all we have to worry about is a school teacher mentioning God, we've come a long way.
All I'm saying that evolution as the origin of species belongs with the other creation stories which people may accept or reject.
As for the Constituion, I'm not sure teaching about God in a public school establishes any religion or infringes on someone's right to the free exercise of religion. But like I said, matters of faith belong to me as a parent.
But if you would like to know about the evil the Framers sought to avoid, study reformation era Europe and early Mormon history. I'm a product of both. My dad's side were Anabaptist Mennonites who were driven from place to place until they wound up in the United States. And on my mom's side, my ancestors were Mormons who came to the United States. The hard thing is that after they got here both my Mennnonite ancestors and Mormon ancestors suffered severe persecution from the government and the public at large. In fact, the governor of Missouri, Lilburn Boggs, ordered the extermination of all Mormons. And during World War I, my grandpa had to change his name from Heinrich to Henry to protect him while other Mennonites were thrown into prison because they were pacifists and had German names, even though none of them or their ancestors had lived in a Germanic country for almost two hundred years.
If all we have to worry about is a school teacher mentioning God, we've come a long way.
Craig- You say that evolution belongs right there with other theories of creation. I can agree in a philosophy of science or history class, but not in a science class. Creationism/ID are fundamentally counterintuitive to the scientific method, which is observation-hypothesis-experimentation-accept or reject hypothesis and reformulate according to experimentation. With creationism, you skip the "experimentation" stage and replace it with "God did it." There is no reformulation or reexamination of the hypothesis with this model, and thus it does not belong in a science classroom.
Again, I am not condemning the belief in these theories, merely explaining how they don't mesh with the scientific method of observe-hypothesize-experiement-change hypothesis.
Again, I am not condemning the belief in these theories, merely explaining how they don't mesh with the scientific method of observe-hypothesize-experiement-change hypothesis.
More than that, Justin, evolution isn't an origins theory. It explains how life changes. Abiogenesis is an origins theory, but even that is metaphysically transparent (e.g., God could cause abiogenesis). The question of whether there is a "first cause" in terms of scientific cosmology is a metaphysical question. You just can't ask it in scientific terms.
That isn't a bad thing for science; you don't use hammers to unscrew things. Different tools for different things. But in a science class, it's perfectly possible to go through the entire thing without a mention of God (or God's non-existence). Those are just scientifically irrelevant topics.
The problem comes when people (both theists and atheists) want them to be scientific topics. An atheist might say that, "Oh, well, since I can explain biology without reference to God, God must not exist!" That's scientism. Or a theist might say, "well, since God is omnipotent, anything can be explained in terms of God." While this latter is perfectly possible, it's also (as you point out) untestable, and so fails one of the basic criteria for science.
The solution is to just not try to make science (or science class) overreach itself. And I think it speaks highly of our cultural growth that "all" we now have to worry about is a teacher talking about God (instead of, say, calling for the extermination of an entire religion). We've gotten past these larger problems and can now concentrate on smaller ones.
That isn't a bad thing for science; you don't use hammers to unscrew things. Different tools for different things. But in a science class, it's perfectly possible to go through the entire thing without a mention of God (or God's non-existence). Those are just scientifically irrelevant topics.
The problem comes when people (both theists and atheists) want them to be scientific topics. An atheist might say that, "Oh, well, since I can explain biology without reference to God, God must not exist!" That's scientism. Or a theist might say, "well, since God is omnipotent, anything can be explained in terms of God." While this latter is perfectly possible, it's also (as you point out) untestable, and so fails one of the basic criteria for science.
The solution is to just not try to make science (or science class) overreach itself. And I think it speaks highly of our cultural growth that "all" we now have to worry about is a teacher talking about God (instead of, say, calling for the extermination of an entire religion). We've gotten past these larger problems and can now concentrate on smaller ones.
The God I know works in ways much greater than I will ever be able to understand. I therefore see no reason why science and faith are incompatible.
Teach science in science class, teach philosophy in philosophy class, and leave me and my church to teach my daughters about what faith means to me/us.
Post a Comment
Teach science in science class, teach philosophy in philosophy class, and leave me and my church to teach my daughters about what faith means to me/us.
<< Home
