Source: Pharyngula
As you might expect, PZ Myers provides a cogent, readable, and marvelously well-informed review of Judge Jones’ decision. The whole decision is available in PDF format; here’s the paragraph that brought hope to my heart:To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.
bill | 21-Dec-05 at 1:12 pm | Permalink
Richard,
The flaws in Darwin’s fitness theory are resolved with quantum mechanics and emergence theory. Similarly, the flaws in creationism get resolved by realizing (admitting?) that Genesis is not a scientific treatise. But the struggle goes on in the public schools, nonetheless. Schools still teach random mutation with natural selection, and fundamentalists (and accomplices) teach that the Bible is science and history (history of the entire world!). So, it seems that the least informed are locked in an eternal battle over school curriculum.
The teachers, board members, parents and clergy need to go back to school.
richard | 21-Dec-05 at 2:36 pm | Permalink
Bill said,”The flaws in Darwin’s fitness theory are resolved with quantum mechanics and emergence theory.”
Bill, I have no idea what you’re talking about. The modern synthetic theory of evolution is a strikingly large and complex edifice, that attempts to explain how a number of different physical, chemical, and biological processes have combined to produce the complex array of life on earth. The explanation provided by evolutionary theory is clear, internally consistent, in excellent accord with observation and experiment, and mightily persuasive. That last feature accounts for the fact that every scientist on earth who has built his or her career in the fields of taxomony, field biology, molecular biology, or any other area of biology that involves day-to-day research on real individual beings and populations of such beings accepts evolutionary theory as an adequate and elegant explanation of the phenomena they observe in their research. Every one of those scientists, if they’ve done good work, is aware of some phenomenon that’s still puzzling, still not completely explained. But none of them expect that explanation to come, when it does, in any other way than by a refinement of evolutionary theory.
Those of us who are not scientists have two choices. We can take the time to read Dawkins and Dennett and Gould, none of whom are easy but all of whom are brilliant, and we can try to understand how the world of life works, or we can throw up our hands and say, “It’s too complicated; there are too many questions unanswered; Gould on page 372 disagrees with Dawkins on page 197; I know in my heart that life is not based on random mutations”, etc., etc., and take refuge in our belief in a Creator God. That second way is may be your choice. But it is not science and has no place in a science classroom.
When you say, “the least informed are locked in an eternal battle”, you’re just wrong. The proponents of evolutionary theory are exceedingly well-informed. They know a lot of science, in depth and in detail; they know the theories, and they’ve reviewed the data, and they’ve trained, through long and laborious study, to understand how that data support or fail to support the theory. Most of them have done good peer-reviewed biological science, in the field or in the laboratory. Many of them (maybe most of them) also know the Bible and the scribblings of the creationists (either under that name or the false name of Intelligent Design).
Those on the creationism/ID side, on the other hand, seem, based on the testimony they supplied in the Kitzmiller case, to be defiantly uninformed; they haven’t done good science in biology (and only a handful have done any science at all); they haven’t read or understood the basic texts of modern evolutionary theory; and they accept no authority but the Bible. When you say they need to go back to school, I’d agree whole-heartedly, especially now that Judge Jones’ decision makes it more likely that what they learn in school will represent good science. But to say that the proponents of science need to go back to school ignores one vitally important fact: they’ve never left school. They’re learning every day and refining their understanding of what they study. That, in fact, is the main thing that distinguishes them from their creationist gadflies.
bill | 21-Dec-05 at 5:45 pm | Permalink
Richard,
I apologize for making a confused point. What I intended to say is that there are those on both sides of the argument who need to relearn what they think they know. Not the scientists but the pseudo and quasi scientists. The flaws in Darwin’s theory, I mentioned because your quote started with: “To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, . . .â€? What I intended to point out is that subsequent study in physics and biology, over the past 100 years, smooth out many of these problems. The remaining problems, IMHO, have to do with rigid categorization and determinism. It’s determinism on both sides.
My gripe is not with science but with ideology masquerading as science and as religion. I have an engineering degree and have read both sides of this issue until I could puke. My intent was not to disagree with you but to agree.
richard | 21-Dec-05 at 9:11 pm | Permalink
Bill, I over-reacted, and I apologize. Like any complex theory, the modern synthetic theory of evolution (calling it “Darwinism” is kind of like calling modern physics “Einsteinism”) undergoes constant revision and refinement. But the foundation ideas of the theory - random mutations in the genome combined with competition for available environmental niches leads to speciation - has stood the test of time (and a century and a half of testing) without being shaken.
And I too despise ideology, whatever mask it wears.