Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Science Education

  • Am I a Darwinian?

    I spent Saturday, February 9, traveling to/from or in Tallahassee. I was there to attend the annual meeting of Florida Citizens for Science, and also to take in some Darwin Day speakers at the FSU Medical School. I was able to work in Dr. Harry Kroto and Dr. Eugenie Scott (National Center for Science Education), and also part of the final panel that include Dr. Michael Ruse amongst others.

    There is a problem with these meetings in that we gather together people who already agree that the theory of evolution is sound science and we are encouraged by those supporting it and alarmed by the number of folks in this country who oppose it. Often little is accomplished in convincing anyone who wasn’t convinced already. But it’s really a very small problem. There is a place for educating and encouraging the choir, and those of us who were there learned some things about communicating evolution. I would say that the very best way to build support for the theory of evolution, and thus also sound science generally, is to provide better science education.

    Why do I think supporting the theory of evolution in particular encourages sound science? In order to truly do science one must be willing to follow the evidence where it leads. Evolution is the main point on which large numbers don’t want to do that. As long as we say we can ignore the facts discovered by science, we are inevitably weakened.

    There was one discussion that interested me especially because of my linguistic background. Dr. Scott made the comment that we should not accept the title “Darwinist” because that title is applied to us by creationists as an epithet. Physicists are not Kelvinists, for example. (Dr. Scott provided a considerable list.) I can see her point on this, because the term “Darwinist” has been poisoned so much by the debate. Dr. Michael Ruse objected on this one point and suggested rather than he didn’t mind being called a “Darwinian.”

    I’m kind of torn on the issue. I don’t like being called an “evolutionist.” It’s not my religion or my political “ism.” It’s just a well-established scientific theory that I accept. It shouldn’t be regarded with surprise that I accept it; the reverse should be true. Why would one not accept a theory with such solid support? But at the same time I dislike the misuse of Charles Darwin’s name. Evolution today is not limited to what he discovered, but at the same time he was both a man of his age, and thus not perfect, while at the same time he was a wonderful example of a scientist, and a scientific thinker. He was able to step beyond the paradigms of his age and provide a whole new foundation for understanding the whole science of biology. In that sense, I would proud–but unqualified–to be called a Darwinian.

    The bottom line, I suspect, is that I can do very little about what people choose to call me or anyone else. I will likely be a “theistic evolutionist” for the indefinite future, even though I object to the “ist” on evolutionist and the “theistic” part of the title. I both believe in God and I accept the theory of evolution. My theism does not modify the data of the theory of evolution. Yet the title has become accepted and does identify a somewhat coherent group of people.

    Perhaps we should take on the name “Darwinian” and try to rescue the reputation of the fine scientist form which it is derived. The fact that this must be done is a sorry comment on our culture.

  • Not Doing Evolution Sunday

    Well, actually I am. Just not officially. First let me note that I was reminded that I needed to say something about this by a comment from Laura, who also provided this link to further information about the weekend.

    First, let me tell you what I am doing for evolution Sunday or Darwin Day. I’m headed to Tallahassee to attend Darwin Day activities that will be held at the medical school there. I will also attend the annual meeting of Florida Citizens for Science, of which I’m a board member. I commend a strong commitment to and involvement in defending evolutionary science, and public school science standards. I believe that public school science standards must teach solid, consensus science, and the theory of evolution is foundational in the biological sciences.

    Second, let me commend those churches and religious organizations that are commemorating evolution Sunday. If this works well in your context this is great. I’ll discuss a bit below about what I believe “works well” and why.

    Finally, let me tell you why I and the non-profit religious education organization I lead are not doing anything specific on Evolution Sunday. I believe the theory of evolution, and only the theory of evolution should be taught in public school because it is consensus science. There is no substantial scientific controversy about it in the community of scientists in the relevant fields. The amount of noise generated on the issue does not relate to any scientific controversy but rather to religious, philosophical, and social controversies.

    And that is the key point for me. While I do not believe the scientific controversy is significant or legitimate at the moment, the religious controversy is very legitimate. It is much more widespread, and has much further to go before there is any consensus, if there ever will be. One of my strongest objections to teaching any version of creationism, including intelligent design, in public schools, is because I do not trust the state and state employed science teachers to teach religious ideas in a balanced manner. It’s not their training, and it’s well-nigh impossible to do in any case. Besides the church-state issues, which I take seriously, you could destroy a semester of science class just running through the number of different views and how they would step on one another.

    The proper place to do this, I believe, is in the home and in the church. (I will note in passing that while I am a strong supporter of public education, and my children attended public schools, I am not opposed to home schooling and believe it should be an option available to parents.) But whether you are homeschooling or not, if you are a parent you need to be paying attention to these issues and providing your children with information and reading material, and then discussing these issues with them. Sunday School classes need to undertake such discussions openly.

    Thus I would call for churches to use the same weekend to discuss religion and science from whatever perspective you choose. My preference for churches is that how one integrates one’s beliefs with science be open. A church that can allow everyone from theistic evolutionists to young earth creationists to share fellowship would be a wonderful thing. I once taught a class in Genesis to a small group, in which the lady who always took the seat to my right was a theistic evolutionist of vigorous views, while the one to my left was a young earth creationist. We all remained friends as well.

    I also know many pastors who have no problem with theistic evolution, but who simply don’t want to go there. If your church holds an explicit doctrinal position against theistic evolution, then perhaps you ought to search for some other church. But if your church does not, perhaps you ought to express the range of positions that are acceptable under your doctrinal standards, and give church members the freedom to express and discuss their beliefs.

    I think Evolution Sunday is effective in a church in which evolution would be the default position of the membership. Bringing that out into the open is good. It is also good to discuss and learn more about it. But plan also to find out how your neighbors think. For example, many Christians I know who accept evolution think the opposition largely consists of young earth creationists. That is not the case. In a church where more views are likely to be represented, I think this Sunday (or one could choose any of a number of other Sundays) can be dedicated to the topic without telling people the conclusion.

    Above all, I would hope this would be a time of some reconciliation in churches. I know I express myself forcefully and regularly on this topic. But I also have said repeatedly that I have no difficulty with fellowship in church with those of opposing views. It would just be nice to know that they could accept me on the same basis. And I have no problem with them also forcefully expecting their views, providing again there is that caveat about fellowship.

    Whatever you do or don’t do, enjoy the weekend!

  • Myth of Galileo

    Joe Carter is debunking the Galileo myth. And a pretty reasonable debunking it is. I’ve read quite a few debunkings of the myth before, and such things are rather important, considering some versions of the story. I’m pretty sure someone in elementary school told me that Galileo was condemned for saying that the earth was round. That surely came from someone who misunderstood Columbus (who’s real issue was the circumference of the earth) and then confused him with Galileo. What stays in place through all these versions is that Galileo was discovering something new, and the church wasn’t anxious for him to do that.

    Now Carter’s debunking, while quite good, and while drawing some very appropriate lessons, reminded me of an incident in my freshman year of college. A sociology professor who professed communism challenged me in class when I quoted 66,000,000 people killed in the process of bringing communism to the Soviet Union. I forget who calculated the number of the details, but Solzhenitsyn cites a statistician who calculated that number in The Gulag Archipelago. My teacher, every mindful of defending good communists everywhere said, “Oh, that’s greatly exaggerated. More likely there were only 40,000,000.”

    The comparison here is not views of the cosmos versus killing people, but rather the idea that diminishing the damage tends to make people forget the essence of the claim. If one’s claim is exaggerated (or wrong), then even if a great wrong was done, people will start to ignore it. They remember that it was exaggerated. In the case of Galileo, I often see the result of debunking. “Oh,” says someone, “he was not treated as badly as the story indicates.” And they decide to give the Catholic hierarchy of the time a free pass.

    But when exaggeration is removed, Galileo’s lack of additional evidence is considered, and any amount of obnoxious behavior on his part is factored in, we still have a scientist who was told by the church to shut up. That’s not good. Now we need to keep in mind the times as well. Comparing the behavior of the church of the time with modern standards of academic freedom is an injustice to some extent as well.

    But as a Christian, I still have to ask if we shouldn’t be better than that. After all, we claim divine guidance. We claim great hope. I would not demand that reformation come instantly, or that the church be wonderfully far ahead of the world around it. I’d just ask that it be a little bit ahead, or more accurately a little bit better. (“Ahead” begs the question of whether we’re going the right way!) The same challenge faces the church today. Are we really doing anything but following cultural trends? In many cases, I think we are not.

    There is a further problem with views of Galileo, and that is the unfortunate idea that the Bible should be used to provide or to test scientific answers. I will repeat what I have said before–there is nothing in the Bible that cannot be adequately understood with the cosmology of the ancient near east. There is no advance of physical science provided by divine revelation. I would ask anyone who disagrees to point to such a thing in scripture. Testing cosmology by scripture is a colossal waste of time. We should no by now that theology is not the best approach to knowledge of the physical world.

    So that leaves me with two elements of the Galileo incident. First, there is a church (and state) that believes it can put someone on trial because they either believe what is false or are obnoxious. Second, that church is testing such ideas by a standard and using methods that are not capable of producing accurate results. Both of those things are terribly bad. They’re not friendly to science.

    Let’s not replace the myth of Galileo the pure and righteous punished by the church with a myth of a church behaving in a fully reasonable fashion. There was still an inquisition, the decision was still wrong, the place and the method was inappropriate to their purpose, and the decision made turned out, not surprisingly to be on the wrong side of history.

    Why does the myth persist? Simple. The victors write the history, and Galileo happened to be right, and the pope was wrong. He should have just sucked it up and let Galileo insult him. It would have provided a better legacy.

  • Florida Science Standards Petition

    The proposed new Florida standards give evolution its proper place in science education. The petition is posted here, and you can find further information on it on the Florida Citizens for Science blog.

    Whether you are in the state of Florida or not, please go and sign. We will give separate counts for the in-state and out of state signers when the petition is presented.

  • Paying People to See EXPELLED

    Given the advance publicity, and now reviews from some friends who have seen the movie, I have almost entirely negative expectations. That is not surprising, considering that I’ve sold out to the Darwinist ConspiracyTM, and no longer believe in God.* :-;

    However, it seems that the upright and theologically correct** folks who produced the movie, have even less faith in it than I do. They apparently feel the need to pay people to see it (HT: Austringer and Glen D. at AtBC.)

    They are especially interested in getting middle and high school students to see the movie, which demonstrates yet again how much more anxious they are to bring their message before the uninitiated than to bring it before people who are qualified to critique it.

    I eagerly await exaggerated claims of ticket sales based on this particular strategy. The ID folks have taken a step down from “truth is determined by popular vote” to “truth is determined by those who can pay for it.”

    *I eagerly await the first time this is quoted by some humor-challenged individual to prove I really, truly am an atheist.

    **Political correctness is a relative newcomer on the correctness scene. Theologians just didn’t have such a catchy name for it. For centuries in many places one could get burned at the stake for not being theologically correct, rather than just expelled from a university, for example. Both ideas are, of course, destructive of freedom. That’s why, of all the epithets rained upon me, I prefer “Henry the Heretic.” It’s good to be a heretic!

  • Florida Science Standards Debate Heats Up

    I can’t seem to keep up with everything that’s happening in the debate about science standards here in Florida, but Brandon Haught, our Florida Citizens for Science communication director (I’m a board member) is doing an excellent job on the FCfS Blog.

    In particular, I’d like to call attention to two blog posts there:

    Those not in favor of good science education, raise your hand. These folks have identified themselves in opposition to the science standards. There are those who will say they are not opposed to good science standards, just the ones on evolution. It is impossible to have good science standards without learning to understand evolution. Make no mistake. Those who oppose the explicit and prominent presence of evolution in the biology standards are not favoring good science education, and their motives are not scientific.

    Here’s why you need to get involved. This looks at how the opposition is getting organized on this point. We’ll meet many of the same old anti-science forces gathering for the fight here.

    I will continue to keep folks updated on the Florida debate, though mostly through linking to the excellent work Brandon is doing on the Florida Citizens for Science blog

  • Inside Higher Ed on Dr. Richard Colling

    Inside Higher Ed has an article, Academic Freedom and Evolution which discusses the AAUP response, amongst others, to the situation at Olivet Nazarene University where Dr. Colling is no longer assigned to teach a general biology course he had taught for years, and his book Random Designer cannot be used as reading in any class. The article also notes the rather interesting lack of response from the Discovery Institute.

    Since I’m currently blogging my way through Dr. Colling’s excellent book, I thought readers would be interested. I will note that I do not object to privately funded, religious schools having theological requirements for their professors, provided everyone knows about those tests and can respond accordingly. In this case, it is not the theology of the denomination involved, nor a standing policy of the school, but rather a response to donor complaints that is driving the case of an already tenured professor who is simply teaching good science.

  • Barbara Forrest makes Statement on Firing of Chris Comer

    I blogged before about the firing of Chris Comer. PZ Myers now has a post that includes the full statement by Barbara Forrest about this. Comer was apparently fired for forwarding a memo announcing Barbara Forrest’s talk in Austin. It’s a good statement.

  • Florida Science Standards go from F to High B

    . . . and I think they’re headed for an A. The writing committee is to be commended for their hard work. The National Center for Science Education and Florida Citizens for Science have issued a press release giving an evaluation of the new standards by one of the experts who participated in giving the old ones an F.

    This is good news for Florida’s science education in many ways. There are those who are trying to make this all about evolution, and I won’t deny that I personally regard it as extremely important that evolution be included fully in the standards as an organizing principle of biology. It should be thoroughly understood by our students. But there is much more to these standards.

    It’s time to increase our expectations in science education. At the same time, we need to be prepared to support our educators as they carry these out.

    [Note: I am a board member of Florida Citizens for Science.]

  • Random Designer I

    A while back I blogged a bit about Richard Colling, an evangelical Christian, microbiologist and a supporter of the theory of evolution. The major item of controversy at the time was his book, Random Designer, which seeks to combine his Christian faith with his acceptance of evolution.

    I’m going to blog my way through his book, because I think he expresses some important points for Christians who are considering how to respond to the issues raised by evolution and other scientific discoveries on the one hand and their understanding of scripture on the other. Dr. Colling is exceptionally well qualified to comment on these issues.

    In this first post I just want to make some general remarks on his introduction. I share some experiences with Dr. Colling in encountering and dealing with the issue of evolution in a church environment. As I understand his theology, he comes from a Wesleyan background, and teaches at Olivet Nazarene University, thus Wesleyan theology provides some connection

    But to a large extent we come at this from completely different perspectives which makes this very interesting reading. He encountered creationism in a debate between a creationist and an evolutionist at the University of Kansas, and was shocked at the poor arguments presented by the creationist (p. 6). I was a convinced young earth creationist until I encountered material on evolution and started to compare the quality with the creationist literature I’d grown up on. There was simply no comparison.

    The following quote gives the flavor:

    This book, then, contains the ideas and perspectives of one broadly trained scientist who is not satisfied with religious platitudes or scientific dogma. I am just like you, attempting to fit the pieces together. The goal is straightforward–to develop a personal faith and cultivate a close connection with God, while at the same time fully acknowledging the scientific laws and processes that plainly govern our existence. [emphasis in original]

    I think this provides a valuable perspective for Christians. It is also hardly threatening. I will make a more complete evaluation as I continue reading, but thus far this looks like an excellent book to put into the hands of someone who is seriously asking questions about this issue.

    On pages 16-17, in discussing science and faith, Dr. Colling makes a strong case for teaching evolution in public schools saying that it is “an integral component of biology.” He also emphasizes that evolution and atheism are not necessarily connected. “The problem arises,” he says, “when the interpretation and meanings of evolution are extended too far.”

    At the conclusion of chapter 2, Dr. Colling has laid out the claim that evolution is not necessarily theistic or atheistic; those conclusions go beyond the actual science involved.

    When next I blog, I’ll be looking at chapter 2, in which he discusses thermodynamics in a way that is very accessible to lay people. For all those who think the 2nd law means that evolution is impossible, Dr. Colling would disagree–he says that the 2nd law is essential to evolution.