Apparently a law was just passed in Britain which restricts funding to any school that teaches creation as a viable explanation for the existence of the earth. It really does baffle me how people can claim evolution as being proven by scientific fact, over and above creation theory. Evolution is a theory-science has to be observable in order for it to be science, and evolution has never been observed. I honestly don’t know what methods God used to create this earth, and to be honest, I don’t really care, even if it was some form of evolution until he created mankind. But to claim evolution as fact is beyond ridiculous, and it corrupts the use of the word science. It’s worth reading the article, the language is ridiculous-Richard Dawkins is a key player (of course).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jan/15/free-schools-creationism-intelligent-design
To limit science to that which is directly observable places harmful constraints on the process and so we normally don’t.
One happily infers extrasolar planets from the light patterns of distant stars, general relativity from the curvature of space-time, blackholes from radiation…so why not evolution from biology?
You make a good point, and I am perfectly willing to agree that the definition of science should be broadened to include theories that are not directly observable. However, those who argue that creation should not be taught in school use the definition of science that I proposed, while accepting evolution as a science within the constraints of that definition. If science is only what can be observed, than neither evolution nor creation should be taught in schools. If science includes theories that are created from the observed, than both should be taught in schools, as both fall into the later category.
Well the definition actually used – at least according the article – is “Under the new agreement, funding will be withdrawn for any free school that teaches what it claims are “evidence-based views or theories” that run “contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations”.”
I see no reference to that which is directly observable, rendering your objection somewhat invalid.
If what you say was purely true with no usage of implied scientific observability, than I would applaud the law. After all, creationism would definitely fall within the category of “historical evidence and explanations”, and funding would not be denied as a result of it.
I do believe that means that means explanations can be based upon evidence from the past, not that they should be included if they were believed in the past.
Argument from tradition is, after all, a fallacy.
It does mean evidence can be based on the past, which is why I assert that creationism should be allowed under that standard. Beyond this, however, if the standard is what you are suggesting, then there is an additional and significant problem with this piece of legislation. Essentially, the standard is forcing scientists and teachers of science to conform to the accepted scientific explanations, which are inevitably established by the power-network regime in place at the time. This is a very obvious hindrance to scientific development, as one of the most detrimental limitations to the science in the past has been forced conformance to the majority-held beliefs. As Foucault points out, knowledge is a result of the fluctuating power-networks that create the institutions for research and dissemination of information. While the scientific community may wish to deny bias in their research, any hypothesis that goes beyond merely the observable will inevitably be impacted by bias. Furthermore, as Walter Korpi points out in his power resource theory, those who have the money and political resources are able to control the rules of the game, thus restraining beliefs and research directions that do not conform to their own agenda.
What all of this means is that creating a norm for scientific research direction is merely the flexing of the muscles of politically motivated scientific communities. While I understand that certain requirements need to be made for research methods (careful records into methodology and results), placing rules around what conclusions are allowed to be made is a direct attack on scientific and academic freedom. It is the exact same action that was performed by the other side centuries earlier, which culminated in the putting to death of Galileo Galilei, for departing from the “established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations” that were perceived at the time.
But the law doesn’t dictate what directions science is allowed to research in or what it is allowed to conclude etc. It is simply dictating that what is taught as science in schools is what scientists say is science.
That it is the experts in a field who tell children what their field say.
Is that really so horrible?
Yes, because you are ignoring the fact that there are many scientists who view creationism as a legitimate science. Aside from that, and perhaps more important, you are also disregarding the power that is operating which labels certain people “experts”, and others as being unworthy of such a title. After perusing your own blog, I am assuming that you have taken the time to become familiar with some of the creation-scientists in the field, and will be aware that these scientists are not mere quacks, but are diligent scientists performing methodologically sound experiments and research. While you may disagree with their conclusions, labelling them as illegitimate scientists doing illegitimate science is nothing more than slanderous name-calling in order to oust an opinion that does not congeal with your own. Thus, the labelling of only those scientists who conform with the norms established as being the experts of the field is an elbowing out of legitimate research, in order to deny alternative explanations. It is a manifestation of power being used to deny opposing opinion within the so-called realm of “experts” of the field. In the end, I ask you-who established certain scientists as having a more valid claim of expertise then others? If the claim to expertise comes from anywhere outside of the power-network that the experts operate within, I challenge you to illustrate this. If not, then the claim is illegitimate, as it is simply propagated by the membership of a specific community of opinion within the scientific community.
You can find lists of scientists who accept creationism but they’re still a very small minority. And when one only looks at those who are experts in relevant fields there percent share of scientists becomes even smaller.
The discovery institute’s list of scientists who agree with them contains 15 molecular biologists, for example. 15! To put that number in perspective, that can be the number of phd graduates from a single university for a single year. It’s an infinitesimally small percentage.
To start teaching something as fact because a handful of people accept it as true would force a plethora of ideas into science classrooms. Biology and chemistry will have to be re-written since there are some doctors who accept homoeopathy and you can say good bye to physics because there are still a handful of scientists who think Fleischmann and Pons’ were right.
But we don’t. We understand that teaching every minority view in science would introduce many incorrect ideas into the classroom and, more importantly, take up too much time. So we err on the side of pragmatism and caution and teach only the essentials.
So why should creationism get special treatment?
As for creationists not being experts, I haven’t read enough of their work to really say since there isn’t a fat lot of original research in my field I encounter by them. Most of what they say is typically taking research done by others and putting a creationist spin on it.
So I’ve only really read two original papers by creationists and they weren’t in my field so I can’t really comment on their validity but they did seem to have some fundamental flaws as far as I (with my limited skill in the area) could tell. The first was a geology paper that seemed to misidentify (and so use incorrect procedures on) the rocks they were examining. The second was a cosmology paper which seemed to be going okay until right in the middle they actually say “then a miracle occurs” (I’m paraphrasing, but only slightly).
They don’t seem to not be experts or quacks, they’re just doing bad science. All the correct procedures for studying rocks (as far as a non-geologist like me can tell) were done, they were just using the wrong procedures for that type of rock.
And finally, there’s this issue of power structures in science. I’ll answer with the tale of Richard Klein. He’s an evolutionary anthropologist who published some excellent research on human evolution. Due to this he became respected and promoted to positions of authority. Then some of his ideas on the Late Pleistocene were challenged and evidence for them gradually slipped away. And with that, so did supporters for his position until now he is one of a handful – if the only – person advocating that idea. Granted he is still an expert on the earlier time periods and is respected for it but when he talks about recent human evolution everyone is happy to turn to their sage and go “you’re wrong.”
It’s not evidence science is completely free of all bias ever but it does show that it is not detrimental to the point it no longer works. People have their views and circles of power but science will still march forwards.
Science will always march forwards, but it will experience some significant hitches along the way, as is apparent from history. There is a significant difference in your example of Richard Klein in comparison to creationism science as well-Klein’s theories were generally disproven, whereas creationism never has been. As to your ration of scientists who believe in creationism as opposed to evolution, the stats that you are relying on are glaringly misleading, as you are talking about one institute, and only the scientists who have taken the effort to associate themselves with this institute. First of all, many scientists would not bother in the first place, since-well, why would they? Secondly, as a scientist, as I have been pointing out, admitting that you support creationism is just that-an admittance, since it carries such a negative stigma with the those men and women who control the flows of science and the hiring and firing of researchers. There have been a number of documented cases where researches of long-standing position have been fired once it was discovered that they believed in creationism science. Thus, your statistics are a little like those that establish how many people in the 1920s were homosexual based on voluntary surveys. Not many are going to volunteer, and not many are going to be honest.
I think you’re missing the point somewhat with the Klein example. You were attempting to argue that there are these power structures which keep creationism out of science, yet as Klein shows these structures – to the extent they do exist – ultimately follow the evidence. So when they don’t take something, such as creationism, seriously you can be sure it isn’t the result of some dogmatic conspiracy but because the evidence simply disagrees with it.
And why the majority of experts disagree with it, even though the exact numbers of those who accept creationism might be off, how off are they going to be? Whilst you do make some valid points, if one were able to take them into account and produce a more accurate number, how much larger would it be? 5 times? 10 times? 20 times? Even then you’re still looking at ~10% of a countries output of molecular biologists for a single year. It’s still a vanishingly small percentage. So whilst my exact numbers might be off, the ultimate conclusion isn’t.
It comes down to pure opinion then-how much should the majority be able to stifle the minority, and what constitutes a significant enough minority that would dictate acknowledgement and allowance by the majority. I strongly believe that you are underestimating the amount of scientists who believe in creationism science, and as such underestimating the size of this minority of belief. As to the reasons why denial of intelligent design is unfounded, I submit to you this article, written by my undergraduate Political Science professor. Also recall that creationism does not have to be entirely polarized against evolutionism. Creationism indicates intelligent design, a guiding hand for the construction of the universe. How this construction occurred is beyond me, and very well could be evolution (not really my interest of study, so I will not weigh in on that discussion). It is an alternative theory primarily for the claim that all came out of dirt, or nothing, or whatever evolutionists are saying it came from these days.
Another alternative suggestion that I have for you is taken from John Stuart Mills’ text “On Liberty”, in which he argues that divergent ideas need to always be allowed and encouraged in order to polish and maintain the freshness of truths. Allowing for the teaching of creationism in schools is a way to show students that scientific theories can be disputed, and that there may be alternative explanations for the way the world first began. Aside from this, even if it does not convince anyone, it is a foil for your evolutionary theory of beginnings which can stimulate discussion and further the understanding of the theory. It is a way to step outside of the theory in order to observe it-something that must be done in order for a theory to receive the full level of critique that it should be subject to.
When one has a continuum of numbers than any divisions in it are going to be arbitrary since in reality it is all joined. If 51% of scientists accepting a position is good enough for it to be included, why not 50%. And if 50, why not 49%, then 48% etc….
However, since we’re talking about something essentially arbitrary to begin with (the allotment of time for science classes) I have little problem with introducing somewhat arbitrary criteria when deciding what parts of the continuum are allowed in.
If one were given an infinite amount of time then one could dedicate as much time to teaching all the nuances of everything as one would like, but ultimatley we have to draw the line somewhere for practical reasons and Dawkin’s criteria seems like a pretty good line to be drawing, even if it is ultimatley a line in the sand.
Now, such a line does not, as you suggest, mean one cannot acknowledge creationist positions. Some of my past biology text books have made reference to them, along with other ideas which have fallen by the way side of science such as Lamarkism, for precisely the reasons you talk about.
A science class consists of two parts – explaining how science works and what science has so far managed to work out. When it comes to discussing the former there is no harm in talking about alternate ideas in an effort to explain how science functions. But when it comes to “teaching the facts,” so to speak, ultimatley there is little room for them there when the time budget is so limtied.
As for the discussion of intelligent design, I shall simply leave you with a famous Douglas Adams quote
“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!””