May 2005 Archives

This debate is making a lot of headlines lately and has been for the last few years. Kansas and other states have tried to change the standards of education to include intelligent design or similar theories as important discussions to be placed side-by-side (in general) with the theory of evolution. I've been considering this debate for a long time and I've come to the decision, as I often do, that the two major stances have it wrong.

The conservative stance is one that states that we shouldn't teach evolution dogmatically, that it's just a scientific theory. The conservatives see evolution being taught without an alternative and think that it is somewhat misleading to teach it alone as the students will come to assume it is truth. There is, of course, some truth to this claim and I can prove it because it was true in my case. I grew up believing that evolution was the truth and believed such most of my way through high school. I have since switched to a position far more conservative than intelligent design.

The fundamental problem with this stance is that instead of proposing an emphasis on the teaching of theories and that evolution, uniformitarianism, and other similar theories that are useful in science are limited, they propose to introduce an alternative theory commonly called "intelligent design." However, the opposite side of the issue is quick to point out that intelligent design is not strictly scientific, but includes religious overtones. And here, is where I become a heretic and agree with the liberal stance (please read on, as I will qualify that remark shortly).

The liberal stance is that public schools are run by the state and as such, the First Amendment to the constitution bars the state from legislating religion, the so-called "separation of church and state." (I would argue that the separation of church and state doesn't state quite what the liberal stance says it does, but I'll leave that for another blog.) They believe that intelligent design crosses that boundary because it assumes there must be some form of intelligence that created the Universe. Who can disagree with that?

The problem, though, is that evolution is no less dogmatic, but not because it's not taught as a theory, but because science is based upon metaphysical assumptions that are religious. Now, let me clarify: the problem here isn't evolution versus intelligent design, but a question as to the nature of science. The modern definition of science is the search for truth by finding patterns utilizing only observable evidence. On the face of it, this doesn't imply anything truly metaphysical, but there is a clear metaphysical implication: If God is to be utilized by science, He must be observable.

This is a religious statement. It cannot be proven that if God exists, He must be observable. It cannot be proven that if one cannot observe something, it does not exist. We've only been able to observe certain celestial objects for a few years, but does that mean those objects didn't exist prior to them being observable? Or, even more persuasive, black holes cannot be directly observed, because the singularity absorbs every form of radiation we might observe. Yet, most astronomers and physicists believe there is enough evidence in other forms to state they exist.

Some would say I've setup a false comparison by stating that we can know black holes exist because our observations of other phenomena suggest a system of physics that demands their possibility. But, isn't this the exact argument made by the proponents of intelligent design? We don't directly observe God, but because of the nature of the ordered complexity of the Universe, can't we logically conclude that it was designed? I don't know that I follow that line of logic myself, but I think it's a little immature for a scientist to deny that any sort of metaphysical (read religious) assumptions are made by the nature of science.

Getting back to my point, it would be my argument that this isn't a scientific debate at all. Science is an established methodology that should be tweaked in this way. Rather, we ought to address the problem more fundamentally. That is, we have a broken education system because we do not teach our students the fundamentals of truth. We should be teacher our youngsters the nature of syllogism and logic and we should educate our students in philosophy.

It's an unfortunate fact that we wait for students to get into high school or higher education before we teach them the modes of thinking and logic. I remember talking about the major types of fallacies in fifth or sixth grade, I believe, but they were an afterthought. They weren't integrated into my education. They weren't established as things I needed to work through to really determine if what someone told me is true. I believe that reasoning skills should be an underlying part of math, reading, writing, and science. This need not be some new curriculum to thrust on our students, but a supplement to help organize and provoke thoughts among students.

Someone will certainly think that hitting young students too early will be lost. However, I disagree. If we have teachers just using terms like "Thus" and "Therefore" and "Ergo" early, we won't have to do much more than that for the primary students. In intermediate and secondary education, we can start to introduce these as formal topics. I have heard young children utter some of the most profound things. Children can think for themselves even if their inspirations are scattered and poorly stated.

An even more fundamental problem is a fear I have in our society as a whole. Americans disdain the intelligent. There is even a general annoyance with smart people for those who work in education. I don't see it too often in the University, but this is the University where we have proud braniacs by the egg carton. Yet, the search for truth and knowledge is looked down upon because some aren't as capable at doing it. Rather, American society has a strong desire for fairness. It's really not fair that some can aspire to greater knowledge and wisdom than other just because of genetic predispositions and because some children have nurturing parents and some children are badly abused. Unfair, yes. But there's that old adage...

I am aware of two current situations right now where the hardline has been avoided to the detriment of all. It's a bit frustrating to me to watch this happen. Due to the nature of the circumstances I'm not going to delve to deeply into details, but I'll describe my impressions and the consequences.

In one case, I know a college student who remains in the University only because his professors keep cutting him breaks. This isn't to say he's uncapable because the opposite is true. He's probably one of the better minds I've met. Yet, he can't seem to go to class and do the work required. He has his reasons, but he's the kind of student everyone hates. He screws up two or three times a semester and because he's smart he begs and pleads and does whatever is necessary to make up for it and then the faculty member, not wanting to be a jerk, gives in.

In the other case, I know of an elementary student who is very bright, but has a very big anger problem. I suspect he has good reason to be angry, especially because his sister also has such a problem. These tend to be indicators of other problems. Anyway, this student has a problem playing nicely and has been restricted from doing things such as playing with basketballs. Recently, the restriction was lifted and he was playing with a teacher when they tied. He didn't like it so this relatively small elementary student attacked the teacher and probably caused a concussion. However, we'll never know because she didn't go to the doctor. This student is a menace to his fellows and teachers. Yet, the student's punishment since has been far from firm. He went on two field trips within a week of the attack. He even got to play with a ball because no one informed the person assigned to watch him at recess of the restriction. He did get punished for that, since he knew we was not supposed to. The teachers and administrators involved are being soft because they know that the real problem probably doesn't lie with him and they really hope for reformation.

There are two problems. First, these students are manipulators. They avoid, "forget", or try to dodge the real work, but they'll work awful hard to whine, beg, plead, and squirm their way out of the consequences. Giving in to a manipulator merely provides encouragement for the same behavior.

In the one case, we have an example of just laziness that the manipulator attempts to disguise as being above the fray by learning the facts but he's above doing the "busy work." In the other, we have a student that is escalating in violence in the same way that an abusive husband escalates violence toward his wife, but knows just the sweet words to get her back after each attack. The hardline is necessary to tell these folks, "No. Life doesn't work by your rules and it doesn't revolve around you." By softening up, we merely allow them to live in the fantasy that the world exists for their enjoyment. We also show them little love.

A child stretches the boundaries of the rules to see if his parents really care. If they care, they stop this behavior and prove they love him. If they don't, he gets whatever he wants, but his parents have shown they don't really care for or love him. In adults, this meaning is lessened but I believe the second problem is magnified.

The second issue is that this ultimately puts everyone else at risk. What about the other students near this violent kid? What if he acts against them next time? The attack that possibly caused a concussion on a teacher 3 times his size could break limbs or worse on a smaller student. Perhaps even more insidious is, what message does this send to the other students? Surely, other students know what has happened by now, but if not, they still see this student breaking rule after rule and still getting the benefits of not breaking the rules.

In the case of the college student, the students who work their butt off to get a B will be extremely frustrated if this student manages to weasle his way into the same grade. Softening on this behavior weakens the grades received from classes and ultimately weakens the degree itself. This student can claim that this is just busy work and that he's above doing it because he's non-conformist, but what else is a degree than a document stating you conformed to the doctrines set forth by the University? Busy work is an exercise in patience, if nothing else.

And just to be sure no one thinks that I'm being Holier-Than-Thou, let me tell you that I was this student. I am speaking of a specific incident happening now, but when I was a student, I once attempted to bribe an exam change from a TA with tickets to the Passion play I was playing Pilate in. Hows that for manipulation? Ultimately, I got a D in that case because I missed the final and the TA took the hardline on that case. I deserved a D even though Calculus II is a subject I had completely covered in high school and knew quite well. Thankfully, I was given the opportunity through the latter half of my undergraduate and all of my graduate degree to work without the manipulation ethic.

To those who manipulate: Stop. You are damaging the people around you and you are ultimately harming yourself. To those who would be manipulated: Caution. Mercy is a gift we should all hand out from time to time, but if you have a manipulator, show him no mercy because a swift, hard kick in his sorry butt is the kind of mercy he really needs.

I went down to Jacksonville, Florida this past week for my brother's commencement ceremony. Anyone who knows my brother knows that everything is a deep discussion with him, especially when the two of us get together. Well, my last night there, I got into a discussion with him, and two of his roommates, Tom and Tony. The three of them together were attempting to make the point that the blacks down there were lazy. My brother talked of how he got worse tips delivering pizzas to black neighborhoods than to white. They talked about how the matrons of the family held the family down and in place. My brother also made some interesting comments earlier about how blacks don't even give their kids "real" names and just make names up that sound African. Nonesense.

This is stupid. This kind of racism is exactly the divisive kind of crap that keeps affirmative action and other such garbage alive. First, let me say that basing a statement like "blacks are lazy" on skin color is absolute nonesense. What is therre that is different about a person's skin, muscle, and bone structure that makes them lazy? Nothing. This is stupid. To try and justify the position by saying, "Well, I really mean their impoverished social status which happens to be worse for blacks" is just an excuse. This has nothing to do with skin color, so why bring it up? You'd be much better off saying, the poor people in the area are lazy. This is likely even statistically true, if you can come up with a quantifiable measure of laziness. But, this is beside the point. The real point is, what is the value in this kind of talk?

These kinds of distinctions are damaging. We should avoid this kind of racism. Racism is a highly destructive force when we think in these terms. I must admit, I do it myself. For me, it's usually when I talk about those "foreign students" or "those Indian students". I don't have a problem with this class of folks, I have a problem with a few of them that bother me and thus the whole group gets mashed together with prejudice. This is wrong. I am wrong when I say this and I hope someone nearby will correct me when I make this mistake. Yes, there is a certain cultural bias that causes some Indian students problems, but is that any reason to assume this for all of them? No. Is it valuable to make such distinctions? No.

However, there is a kind of racism that is good. Rather than identifying races by their problems, we can celebrate their cultures and can address the unique problems they face. That is, we can perform racial profiling in a way that moves out to help others in a selfless way rather than to pull back and whine about how stupid or irritating that class of people is. This too has the danger of creating stereotypical molds for people. Yet, we can celebrate the rich heritage a culture has.

African Americans do have a unique cultural background. Nearly all of them have ancestors who were oppressed to some extent for hundreds of years. Many of them were treated cruelly. This cruelty has not totally ended, but I think it likely that we will have an African American President in my lifetime. This speaks volumes of the progress that has been made and I think that we should work extra hard to avoid the kind of negative labeling that continues to pass this prejudice onward. Instead, let's embrace one another as human brothers. We must not forget the past and our heritage, but we can make today right.

As a small clarification, I mean this in a personal sort of way, not in the political realm. Political solutions have a tendency to create prejudice rather than fix it. As such, I'm opposed to affirmative action and am rather in favor of education. (That is, so long as that education isn't steeped in a "white people suck" mentality, but is rather interested in the differences between people and allows them to come together and meet.) Political tools should be used carefully and have been applied too often because they are easier than building personal rapport between groups.

Ultimately, we should strive to focus on the positives that each culture possesses, and every culture has something good in it. (I don't think a thing can be all bad.) African Americans, Latinos, Asians, Indians, Hawaiians, Europeans, Persians, Arabs, Jews, Russians, Aboriginies, and all the others are of great worth. We shouldn't apply negative labels to people. Rather we should humble ourselves and seek common ground. This is ideal racism. A high target to aim for, but this I think it's worth the effort. We should celebrate the value contributed by our differing cultures and perspectives. Let's not get caught up in destroying one another. The ruler of this world doesn't need anymore help.