The Billiken's Bluff

I promised St. Nick a response in this monkey debate, but I'm going to have to actually be real brief here for a change. Hopefully, I can afford to be; my point is a simple one-celled organism and I would hate to see it split and evolve into a predatory, mammalian beast of an argument (some species of which the Saint seems to have bred below) about the merits of intelligent design, Mendell, the Discovery Institute, or the seperation of church and state.

Not that I wouldn't love to discuss these topics over cigars and brandy sometime. But for now I really don't have much to say about all this intelligent design theory, "ID," whatever you call it. The only time I argue about ID is when I don't have mine with me and some waitress won't serve me a vodka tonic.

Clearly I said nothing of these supposed competing theories when I responded to the Got's comment in Nick's Onion post. My one point - and I stand by it - is that proponents of evolution theory have no right to demand that the theory cannot be questioned. If even those scientific theories that have been supported by strong evidence of all the major propositions that follow from it are above questioning, evolution theory falls far short of this. Just as an example, there is no direct evidence of how, why or if a species can jump its genetic track and morph into a different species.

When you are looking for answers about where the multitude of animal and plant forms came from, unanswered questions like these are not a matter of a couple missing fossils, as the Saint would try to present them. I'm not trying to say that science cannot one day answer questions like this. I'm just saying it hasn't.

And I don't understand why that has to be kept such a secret.

Let me be clear. Obviously I think the fullest understanding of evolution theory that time and circumstance allows should be taught in classrooms. But - to take the Saint's example - if my kid wants to be a scientist or engineer, I would want him or her to seek out the unanswered questions that science and other disciplines are grappling with, and to be aware of where current theory and evidence falls short. The Saint calls this "the illuision of doubt." But in science, is doubt an illusion or a necessity?

I find it outrageous that kids today would get denied the chance to ask or be aware of these questions because some people might think it is somehow politically incorrect or unconstitutional to ask them in a classroom setting. It is one more piece of evidence that public schools are failing kids when they all grow up and go to college without any concept of those observations in nature that evolution theory cannot explain, and start threatening to punch people if they don't "believe" in its infallibility.

But let's be honest. It was never about the science for those people who go beserk when you question the theory, or suggest that kids might actually benefit from some kind of footnote to the theory of evolution that illuminates these issues. The Saint in all his good intentions is an example of the sort of Blue Stater who really really wants evolution to be considered infallible and taught as such in classrooms because he sees himself as the Enlightenment protector of intelligent, scientific disciplines against the Dark Age evils of bible-thumping alternatives**. There's politics afoot.

I for one am very sympathetic to the human frustration of seeing the concrete and provable threatened by but the seemingly purile and imaginary. But the progress of science requires a distinction between the provable and the proven that our high school bio classes refuse to provide.

Why short-change science? Look for example, at how the Saint points out that humans share 96% of their genes with chimps. Interesting factoid, to be sure. But does it explain anything? The Miller Lite in my fridge and the Bud Lite keeping him company no doubt share something close to 96% of their chemical composition - from this can we deduce that the Bud Lite evolved from the Miller Lite? I do not deny to be the descendant of an ape, I'm just really interested in learning how that happens genetically. And I would think scientists would be too.

Biology teachers in our schools are charged with providing students with an introduction to the scientific process and a background in life sciences. They should leave questions of a spiritual or philisophical nature for outside the classroom. But if students of science, like Einstein***, find a way to reconcile a dedication to scientific discovery with a belief in, well, something science can't explain, no should be surprised that questions of a very "politically incorrect" nature surface from time to time.

**
FOOTNOTE 1

If the Saint was really the "realist" he claims to be, one wonders why he would ignore the reality of the very situation he brings up here in his complaint? He asserts, for example, that what they did in Dover PA would require the "educational hours of American youth."

In reality, Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. The teacher is required only to read the following before they starting tecahing it:

"Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

"Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind.

"The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses on the standards and preparing students to be successful on standards-based assessments."

Okay, I think this Pandas and People stuff here might be out of bounds depending on how necessary it is to introduce students to ID. I really can't comment on whether or not ID is a junk science or accepted in any scientific community because I haven't read all that much about it. I do think it sounds interesting and I'd love to chat about it over cigars and brandy, like I said. The last bit strikes me as a reasonable disclaimer. The top part they should be teaching in the course anyway. This takes about 30 seconds to read. So how is this detracting from education again?

***
FOOTNOTE 2

As you will see in the comments section, St. Nick nearly hemorrhaged when I brought Einstein's personal beliefs into the E=MC squared of why I think we shouldn't be surprised if people dedicated to science still want to ask questions "outside of the box." I can understand why this terrifies the St. Nicks of the world. But should it surprise them?

Not if they are aware of some of the questions the most successful and important scientists have come up with.

Einstein once asked, "How much choice did God have in constructing the universe?" (Protesting quantum theory, he also asserted that "The Lord God does not play dice.")

Stephen Hawkings, discussing the possibility of a unified theory:

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?... Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a creator, and, if so does he have any other effect on the universe? And who created him?"

And finally, the very famous Hawkings ending to A Brief History of Time. Note to The Got: your sis may enjoy this quote:

"...if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."

All of this obviously lies outside my point about the cirriculum of high school biology. But if we are to accept that what Dover PA did amounts to a violation of the "seperation of church and state," how does one respond to the high school chemistry or physics teacher who suggests to an interested student that he read A Brief History of Time, or fails to edit from an article about Einstein where his musings may touch on the philisophical? Do we run him out of town for "shoehorning" religion into a classroom?

No one refutes that Hawkingses and Einsteins make the contributions they do to science because of a dedication to scientific process and the design of testable hypotheses. But the day the Blue State Mind Police succeed in their demands that the education of science requires doing their damnest to make sure kids never share or are exposed to the thought patterns of some of our greatest scientific minds is a dark day for science indeed.

P.S.
Where did the first cell come from?