I would like to give a round of applause to Ben Stein’s movie Expelled for exposing a serious problem: the refusal of scientists to accept a rivaling theory. In fact, not only are they unwilling to accept it, they’re downright unwilling to co-exist with it. I’m talking about the theory of creationism.
Why is it such a problem to believe that a supreme creator may have created this world? This doesn’t (necessarily) contradict your theory that animals evolve and the fittest will survive. It actually has the potential of meshing with it quite seamlessly. (Does anyone know how God created the world? For all we know…it was by placing a little amoeba into a drop of water and commanding it to grow and evolve. And after we die and figure that out, he’ll say, “Boy what of bunch of bickering kids you are.”)
Mr. Stein’s movie has been panned by almost everyone that calls himself an evolutionist or Darwinist and I’m not in the least bit surprised. In fact it only goes to prove his point even further…that these people are absolutely unwilling to even consider coexisting with such a line of thought. STOP THE BICKERING!!! Let’s just all smile at each other and say, “You know what? I might be wrong, you might be wrong, we both might be wrong, or we both might be right. Let’s work towards developing a process for teaching both views, and let individuals choose for themselves what they agree with.”
And by the way, go watch Ben Stein’s movie and visit the Expelled website for more information.
4 responses so far ↓
Nimravid // April 28, 2008 at 7:51 am
I think you’re missing part of the issue. The question is “What is science?” Science by definition is limited to exploration of the observable. The supernatural is by definition unobservable. ID says that a supernatural entity interfered at some point or points in the evolution of life. In order for this idea to be scientific, we need to be able to detect this interference. The trouble is ID has no way to detect such design, and the ID proponents do not even agree among themselves about when and how many times this supernatural interference occurred.
There are a lot of people who harmonize the observed process of evolution with the existence of God in theistic evolution. This is a separate issue from intelligent design, however. Theistic evolution says that God used natural processes in the development of life. ID says that natural processes are insufficient, and that supernatural interference is required. (I think that the theistic evolutionist position is more consistent because most Christians believe God is in control of the weather, but do not imagine that God must work a miracle in order to make it rain.)
Since ID is not scientific and requires the existence of a deity, that means it is religious (so is theistic evolution, but no one is presenting that idea as an alternative scientific theory). This means the topic is not appropriate for science classes (that would constitute an establishment of religion), but could be taught in a class related to religious history, comparative religion, or modern religious movements.
If you want to see a point of view from a conservative who strongly disagrees with the ID movement, you can read John Derbyshire’s article in the National Review on Expelled. Derbyshire is a theistic evolutionist.
Ryan // April 28, 2008 at 10:05 am
Nimravid, I sincerely appreciate your thoughts. My intention is not to prove or disprove the theories of intelligent design (ID) or Darwinism. Rather, my point is that there should be acceptance for the teaching of both philosophies.
Explaining to students that there is an alternative theory and it consists of … does not equate to state sponsored religion. It simply represents a fair representation of both theories and allowing students to subscribe to whichever appeals to them at the individual level.
Consider the spiritual experiences that millions of people have had since the beginning of time. To me, the sheer volume suggests evidence that there really is a higher power participating in our existence. So the concept enters the realm of something that would require further research.
Where common science fall short, is in its inability to account for influences which can’t be measured physically.
Nimravid // April 28, 2008 at 12:02 pm
“My intention is not to prove or disprove the theories of intelligent design (ID) or Darwinism.”
“Darwinism” is obsolete. We’ve progressed a bit in the past century and a half. It’s gotten so when you see anyone use the term “Darwinism”, you can be pretty sure they’re a creationist, unless by happy chance you’ve run across some lone historian studying the development of the theory of evolution.
“Rather, my point is that there should be acceptance for the teaching of both philosophies.”
That’s apples and oranges. That’s like saying for even-handedness’ sake we should teach both cake-baking and grammar.
ID does not constitute a theory, so the presentation of the alternatives (ID/theistic evolution/creationism/non-Christian creationism) is pretty much summed up by, “Some people think God did it.” This adds nothing to the discussion of the scientific theory, which is about what we can observe in the physical realm. Plus it’s kind of stating the obvious. I doubt it’s possible to reach school age without knowing some people believe in God.
You seem to think that science proceeds by first stating, “There is no God.” Science makes no statement regarding the existence or nonexistence of any particular undetectable entity, since such things are outside the purview of science. Science is about what we can learn from observations of the physical realm. From these observations we’ve built up theories, including the theory of evolution. These represent our current best understanding of the natural world, and no religious frameworks purported to be alternatives have been able to present evidence contrary to these theories and consistent with that religious framework.
Since the theory of evolution represents our best understanding of the natural realm, does not make claims about unobservable entities, and has not been challenged by coherent arguments from alternative theories, it belongs in science class, and any supplementary religious ideas belong elsewhere.
If you’ll notice, there are a lot of theistic evolutionists, yet they aren’t trying to get a divine cause inserted into science classes, nor do evolutionists spend much time criticizing them. That’s because theistic evolutionists find science and religion compatible and complementary. The reason ID attracts so much negative attention is because it’s religion pretending to be scientific, and failing.
Ryan // April 28, 2008 at 10:26 pm
We’ll have to agree to disagree.
Leave a Comment