Posted
Friday, May 6, 2005 @ 1309 PST
----- permalink
-----
|
Why are we having this discussion?
From the Washington
Post, this headline:
In
Kansas, A Sharp Debate on Evolution: Educators Consider
Intelligent Design
TOPEKA,
Kan., May 5 -- Debating a question that the scientific
establishment considers settled, Kansas education authorities
put evolutionary theory on trial Thursday in a hearing
marked by sharp exchanges over Earth's origins and what
students should be taught in science class.
Yes, Kansas -
again. I would laugh if it were funny. There appears to
be such an astounding level of scientific illiteracy at
work here that there is little hope for the next generation
(or two) doomed to attend school in that benighted state,
regardless of the outcome. It is one thing to discuss the
spiritual meaning of what we can discern with the tools
at our disposal (like science), even to create venues for
such discussion. It is quite another to place that discussion
in science classes where you are trying to teach young people
science - that is to say teach them the fundamentals of
how the tool works and what we have discerned with it. Even
the complete lack of understanding about what theory is
in science is depressing. As someone studying the scientific
method, research (both quantitative and qualitative), and
theory construction and critique, I would say that the biggest
error that consistently appears in this discussion is that
a theory is "just an idea". Ideas, grounded in
observed phenomena, are the beginning, and only the beginning,
of the climb towards scientific theory. Even speculative
theory rests upon demonstrable facts, even laws. Germ Theory
is a powerful explanation for certain illnesses, and rests
upon a great deal of demonstrable fact, experimental data,
and even biological laws, yet it cannot be PROVEN as correct
or "true". Science doesn't prove things, it disproves
them. If something cannot be disproven, and is a reasonable
explanation of what can be seen to occur, then it becomes
accepted as "true" to the best of our knowledge,
and remains such until either a refinement or new theory
can be demonstrated to be a better explanation. Science
does not, and should not be expected to offer meaning in
the spiritual sense (ie: why are we here? why did it turn
out this way?). Conversely, spiritual or religious convictions
should not limit what explanations science can offer. If
that were allowed, we would still believe the sun revolved
around the Earth, regardless of evidence to the contrary
- the exact opposite of science.
BTW - an interesting
factoid: Florence Nightingale did not believe in Germ Theory,
even though she was an able scientist. There are still plenty
of people in this day and age who do not believe in the
Germ Theory explanation for AIDS.
Category:
politics,
USA,
science,
spirituality
|
![[Valid RSS]](../../../images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
