rmooney@uicsl.UUCP (03/31/84)
#N:uicsl:7500057:000:5612
uicsl!rmooney Mar 30 17:36:00 1984
Even if one accepts the validity of the "scientific evidence" given
by creationists (which of course I do not) and even accepts that science
can use the supernatural (which I definitely do not) this *still* does
not imply the acceptance of legislating creationism (on "equal time" or
any other basis) into the science classroom.
The primary purpose of science education, at least prior to college
if not graduate school, is to teach fundamental scientific ideas generally
accepted by the scientific community. There is simply not enough time or
reason to discuss every possible competing theory which has ever been
proposed, even in mildly contraversial areas in which a few scientists
might disagree with the accepted view. There are some areas, such as
cosmology, where such precious little evidence is available that two or
more competing theories (e.g. Big Bang v.s. Steady State) are usually present-
ed. But notice that this is a natural result of the sparcity of evidence on
either side and the corresponding uncertainty in the scientific community.
Note that Steady Staters have not tried to legally demand that their theory
be taught on an equal time basis in the classroom, such action is uprecedented
and unscientific.
One only has to read the scientific journals in biology to realize that
evolution is a generally accepted theory and that creationism is effectively
never mentioned. Evolution has earned the support of scientists over the
more than hundred years since it was proposed, and it was no easy battle.
Creationists want to short-circuit the standard way scientific ideas are
validated and have their ideas legislated into legitamacy. If they believe
their testable claims have any validity, they should be spending their time
convincing the scientists who have the knowledge and experience to judge them
objectively instead of trying to convince people and students who do not have
the background to critically evaluate them.
Also, consider the precedent such an action would make. If one could
demand that creationism be taught whenever evolution is then there is no
reason in principle why other theories couldn't be legislated. One could
demand that whenever the Bohr model of the atom is taught that the *real*
thing (i.e. probabilistic s,p,d... orbitals) be taught also. God forbid that
any student would be left with such a erroneous view of the physical world
which could forever effect his philosophical outlook! All subjects, even
non-sciencetific ones, would have their counterparts. When the Darwinian
view of evolution is presented that Lamarkian be also. That when solar
fusion is taught that the problem of insufficiently detected neutrinos be
raised. When Freudian psychology is presented that Skinnerian be also.
That the grammar taught in grade school (which no self-respecting linguist
would defend as accurate) be complemented with Chomsky's transformational
syntax. That non-Euclidian geometry be taught alongside Euclidian (How
can we leave students believing there is only one set of axioms!) When
the Constitution is read that the Communist Manifesto be also (Its only fair!)
That when Shakespeare's plays and sonnets are read that it be mentioned
that Francis Bacon may have written them (this idea is supported by many
literary scholars).
Is this the sort of possiblity we want to open up? Who decides when
an alternative is taught? Public opinion hardly seems a fair way. Should
we battle all these out in court? (I think I'll try a couple if the
creationists succeed.)
Obviously we cannot allow scientific theories to be legislated into
the classroom. Science has its own way of evaluating theories and it should
be allowed to function. This stuff about evolution being *only* a theory
is garbage. All scientific claims are only theories in that they are all
open to revisement or replacement. Nothing in science is an eternal truth.
However; theories are supported in varying degrees, and evolution is very
well supported by scientific standards, while creationism is certainly not.
Creationists would probably counter that the scientific community is
biased against them and will never accept their evidence. They quote
occasions where their papers have been rejected by scientific journals
and claim this shows this bias. I would claim it shows that their evidence
is unconvincing to those who know enough to judge it fairly. Certainly,
science is "biased" against new ideas in the sense that they are skeptical
and that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. However,
history has shown that if the weight of the evidence is sufficient, scientific
opinion will change even if it demands a "major philosophical revision",
i.e. a paradigm shift. The original acceptance of evolution as well as
relativity and quantum mechanics is testimony to this. I should clarify
here that I am talking about acceptance of the scientifically testable claims
that creationists make, e.g. the age of the earth, the sudden appearance of
all life, the flood, etc.; as explained in previous notes, no evidence can
demand the existence of a god or the supernatural.
Therefore, if creationists want their claims taught to students they
should do the work and gather the evidence to convince the people in the
scientific community who have the background to judge them fairly; and
then they will not have to be legislated into the science classroom but
will be there as a mattter of course.
Ray Mooney
ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!rmooney
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaignrobert@erix.UUCP (Robert Virding) (04/03/84)
Thank God (!) some one finally said something about trying to validate a
*scientific* theory by making it law. Doesn't the discussion on Pi=3 (or
whatever value) show how ludicruous this can become.
If creationists really feel that they must have a law to make people listen
then they must be VERY unsure of their results. History has shown that a
sound, well-based theory will gain acceptance even if their is opposition to
it because it is so *different*, or *strange*, or *against commonsense*.
Just look at the reception many modern theories in physics had.
Just a passing question I can't resist. What do creationists say about the
rest of the Universe? Does it exist and is it a big as other theories say?
Another question I can't resist. Why creation as in the bible? Why not say a
hindu creation, or a buddist creation? Or any other creation for that matter?
Many of them are much more interesting and satisfying than the rather simple
one in the bible. (Is it because of your beliefs? Very unscientific!)
Robert Virding @ L M Ericsson, Stockholm
UUCP: {decvax!philabs}!mcvax!enea!erix!robert