The Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate has been in the news quite a bit lately. And for the most part I allign myself firmly on the Evolution side. It's not that I don't believe in an Intelligent Designer (although, generally, I call Him God or Heavenly Father); on the contrary, I have very deep-rooted belief in Him. But my faith isn't science.
Scientific knowledge depends on hypotheses that can be tested through experimentation--the scientific method. My high school biology teacher spent about a week at the beginning of the course discussing what science is and isn't. Even though evolution wasn't specifically in the general biology curriculum, having a "What is Science" section established a foundation for the rest of the year.
All this being said, I was a little disappointed in a blurb in my latest issue of Science. The title of the piece is "Darwin's Place on Campus Is Secure--But Not Supreme." The general idea of the article is that teaching evolution in college courses doesn't cure students of believing in a Creator. Based on multiple surveys done at many univiersities what is being found is that students are becoming more accepting of evolution, but not abandoning all "creationist" sentiments--"they tend to stick to their views on God's role in creating humans."
What bothers me about this whole article is the implication that the object in teaching evolution is to convince students to abandon their religious beliefs. And that it is troubling to the professors if students maintain their belief in God through the end of the semester (after all, these are some of the brightest students in this class who will go on to become doctors and veterinarians). I guess it just makes me more appreciative of the fact that I went to a university where the professors believed as I do that scientific and religious beliefs are not mutually exclusive.
7 comments:
I couldn't agree more, Sonnet! I can't believe how many people think that evolution and a "Supreme Creator" are mutually exclusive! I too am grateful I had teachers who understood and supported the differences between Science and religion.
Amen! Or should I say "I support your statements because they are logically sound and backed by empirical evidence." (That's me trying to sound scientific.)
I recently read an interesting article about this.
One of the reasons that I was disappointed in this article is that it doesn't reflect what I have come to expect from (and respect about) Science (the magazine). AAAS (the organization that publishes Science) actually has a good information page about the issue that acknowledges that science and religion are not inherently opposed.
Card says in the article Mark mentioned, "If both sides would behave like scientists, there wouldn't even be a controversy, because everyone would agree on this statement:
Evolution happens and obviously happened in the natural world, and natural selection plays a role in it. But we do not have adequate theories yet to explain completely how evolution works and worked at the biochemical level."
Ummm... no. The biochemical level is where I think things are most clear. DNA mutates, you get natural selection and evolution when the occasional benefit is conferred by said mutation. It doesn't seem to me to be unexplained.
The inadequacies of darwinism or any other scientific theory can't properly be addressed through a philosophical analysis, and that is what is being attempted. The idea, "if not Darwinism, it *must* be intelligent design" is just crap from a scientific point of view. As a philosophy major, we discussed intelligent design and the arguments surrounding it quite a bit. But it ain't science and that's why it shouldn't be in the science classroom. It can be in the schools, but unless it can be tested and disproved like other scientific inquiries, it's place is in the philosophy classroom instead.
Having said all that, I totally agree with you Sonnet, that some scientists seem to have an agenda on this, and that's disappointing. Some of my friends in the AMA are downright derisive toward religion. And my med school has actually gotten some negative press recently for being an unfriendly "learning environment" for conservative students for similar types of things. It's too bad.
I've already left a longer comment than I probably should have, so I'll have to post again some time my thoughts on science vs. religion and reconciliation.
I also am grateful for the oppurtunity I had to learn about evoultion where it is not pitted against religion. I just wish everybody could(would) take Bio 420, it would make my life a lot easier...One of my favorite times in that class was when Dr. Jeffery wrote 'Evilution' on the board on the first day of class.
You had Dr. Jeffery? Duane Jeffery? I interviewed him once for a history (of evolution) paper. He's awesome. But I never took a class from him. You're my new hero, John.
Post a Comment