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...
Leave a comment