Posted by Ir (Helen) on: 06.20.2006 /
In dialog #2 with Pastor Tim, Hemant commented on a paper written by Tim called Creationism For My Child’s Teacher . Pastor Tim evidently intends parents to give this paper to their child’s biology teacher. It begins with a letter to the teacher which makes this request:
I am asking you to teach (or continue to teach) evolution as just that - a “theory,” and keep your classroom open to other theories of the origin of the world.”
Hemant will be certified to teach biology as well as math. He does not want to have to teach Intelligent Design along with evolution. He strongly disagrees with the viewpoint of Pastor Tim’s paper and has listed some specific reasons why on his site.
Hemant writes:
There are a lot of problems with this pamphlet that I think deserve to be pointed out. Ultimately, I’d like to see my points corrected or the document removed from the site.
Here’s Hemant’s concluding summary from his site:
If we allow science to include the supernatural, it defeats the purpose of the field itself. The whole goal is to take what we see and find an explanation. If someone doesn’t think Evolution works, the person’s job is to provide a better theory. Resorting to the supernatural is not an option in Science, and should not be taught to our children as a credible alternative to experimentation and correction.
There is also some discussion of Pastor Tim’s paper on our discussion board here.
What do you think?
Comment by: Julie Marie
1No, Hemant should not teach ID along with evolution. Hemant’s objections are reasonable and I share them, as a parent. I don’t want religious belief confused with scientific discovery.
although I do not require the hard evidence that some regular posters do to sustain my belief in the supernatural, I am sympathetic with and share their point of view. I happen to believe there are things we do not understand and cannot measure or quantify, and faith falls into this category. Until we are able to quantify something, it should not be part of public science education.
Religious belief is best taught within the context of family - and I say that as a believer. The creation story is part of a religious belief system. Major world religions do have a place in an elective social and political history course as they are woven into the fabric of our lives and these worldviews impact history. I for one wish I knew something more substantial about Islam. (its on my list…)but these beliefs don’t belong in a science class.
I think good can come of this, though, if Pastor Tim takes a second look at his paper in light of the criticisms posted here, on Hemant’s website, and on the DB. Its strong stuff, but it is the truth. I’ve had to review some of my beliefs over the past few months. Its not pleasant, but I’ve come away feeling better about myself for the honest look I’ve taken. And my faith is more mature now…by that I mean less defensive, more able to articulate that its okay to not have all the answers, to be unable to make all the pieces fit together neatly.
Comment by: Eliza
2No, Hemant should not teach intelligent design in a science/biology class.
I think one misunderstanding might be what “teaching evolution” means. As I understand it, biology teachers cover the origin of species - that’s what it was in the Dover case last year. Origin of species was the title of Darwin’s seminal book and is the evolution from less complex organisms, to more complex & more varied organisms. Origin of species is well-supported by fossil evidence and by observations of species in real time (including the finches on Galapagos Islands, an inspiration to Darwin and still changing today in response to available food supplies). The scientific evidence is good for evolution to new species.
While creationists may find plenty to dislike about origin of species, questions about the origin of life and the origin of the universe seem to get folded into to their concern about kids being taught “evolution”. While scientists are working on models for “abiogenesis” (creation of life), there is no scientific proof about how life started on Earth & no place for teaching “abiogenesis” in a biology classroom. If the origin of life came up for discussion, the possibilities discussed should be broader, because there are more potential hypotheses, & less scientific data on which to base any discussion. That really puts it in a different category than a biology classroom.
Evolution is about biological systems. It has nothing to do with questions about the origin of the universe. Those would also best be addressed in other settings - astronomy class for the “what” of it - learning about observations of the universe, including its expansion and the idea of the Big Bang - and religious discussion at church, home, or in a religious school for teachings acceptable to the child’s family on the “who” and the “why”. I was floored when I heard Pastor Tim go straight to the origin of the universe as an example of major problems with the “theory” of evolution…imo such misunderstandings about what evolution is can only contribute to the strenuous objection to teaching it.
As in so many other situations, it seems that each “side” has to be clear on the definitions the other side is using, ideally with some attempt to come to agreement between them about what, exactly, they are talking about. Otherwise there’s little point in going on to the next step!
Comment by: Nutrideath
3I agree with what Julie Marie said about religious belief being best taught within the family.
I grew up religious, and I have also always loved science. One of the best things I ever learned was from my father.
I had brought home a science textbook, and was floored by the comparisons it made between a whale’s flipper and a human hand - how they both have the same number & basic configuration of bones. I excitedly pointed this out to my father, who agreed that it was a wonderful and interesting piece of information. He then pointed to the part of the text that extrapolated from it proof of evolution.
We read it together, and he said to me a phrase that I’ve come to believe more & more as I’ve gotten older: “Son, always remember that just because something is printed in a book that does not mean it is true.”
People will print all kinds of things. In school they will also teach whatever is the science of the day. Once a child grows up & leaves school they will hear ideas & theories unlike any they’ve ever encountered before (or at least, you hope they will).
Parents need to begin early with their children, teaching them how to discern truth from fiction. This will equip them to be able to take a stand for what they believe rather than be blown hither & thither with whoever or whatever they happen to be around. When I was in school, I understood the science taught, and was able to see where it deviated from what I believe as a Christian.
This did not scar me emotionally. I did not go home crying every day. I was taught not to disrupt class, and not to moan about how the teacher was teaching falsehoods. I was taught that people will believe what they want, and the teacher will more than likely teach something different from what I believe. I learned faith in God.
Instead of being bowled over by seeming proofs of evolution while in biology, I could look at things from a different standpoint. In many cases, I could see how the “proof” of evolution was not proof of it at all — unless one looked at it with that preconception. I was taught to expect different opinions & ideas. Therefore, when I encountered them I was not afraid of them, or swayed by them.
We all know what Hemant will teach. If a parent wants their child to believe differently from Hemant, they have to equip their child to handle it.
Comment by: Siamang
4My point is that evolution is a better argument FOR God than Creationism and intelligent design doctrine is.
Why? Because evolution is a broad picture of the natural world. There is a beauty and grandeur to it. It encompasses the entire history of life.
It has the added benefit of being true.
Comment by: Ir
5I agree.
After I became a Christian in college I did wish that the theory of evolution had been taught to me in high school with a little less certainty.
For the sake of honesty.
I recognize that it’s the one theory scientists have and I don’t mind them teaching it. But I would like them to present it as more of a ‘working hypothesis we’re happy with’ than an established fact.
It doesn’t bother me at all that ID is not taught in public schools. My issue is scientific integrity rather than trying to get something which implies God into the school system.
True?
Surely you mean, ‘(imo) strongly supported by the evidence’? ;)
Comment by: Eliza
6…Well, evolution as a process has been proven to occur. Where you have to decide whether or not the evidence is enough to declare “truth” is in the “origin of species” as evidenced by static observations from which change over time is strongly inferred, including fossil evidence.
Evolution observed in action in modern times includes changes in Finch beaks on Galapagos Islands in the 1970’s-80’s:
But don’t believe everything you read or hear. Nutrideath is right…”that just because something is printed in a book that does not mean it is true.” Any book. Though some have more basis in reproducible observations than others. ;)
You, yourself, can go to the Galapagos Islands, or any isolated place on earth, and take careful observations yourself over several years of changed environmental circumstances to monitor for changes. The warming climate is providing a marvelous opportunity to see how and whether millions of species change to survive - plants, insects, birds, mammals, you name it. Come back in a few years and let us know what you found…
Comment by: Ir
7I just don’t think ‘true’ is the language of science, is it?
There is no openness to future evidence in a declaration that something is true.
Yet advocates of science here have said they are open to whatever future evidence comes along.
If they really are then it seems to me that declarations that something is ‘true’ are out of place.
Comment by: Ir
8Yes - I agree that if I were to do that I’d observe some changes.
However I just find it hard to believe that mutations led to, say, the formation of an eye. Maybe because when we studied fruit flies at school all the genetic mutations were harmful.
It’s not a religious issue. I just find it hard to believe.
Comment by: Siamang
9You got to study a lot more fruit flys over a much larger span of time.
And by true, I mean exactly that. It is true that human beings have evolved from earlier forms of animals. It is true that all animals share a common ancestry.
Just as I can say that it’s true that anything at all is true. Science has a methodological process that would say “this theory best fits the evidence.”
I am not science. I am a human being, and as such I have no trouble talking like a person and not like a robot.
I’m always willing to hear any evidence to the contrary, at which time I’ll change my position. But just as it’s a true thing that the sun will shine on the earth tomorrow, and it’s a true thing that ice floats and lead sinks, it’s a true thing that chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor.
Comment by: Ir
10Siamang, I’ve never come across the word ‘true’ used in the way you’re using it. I’ve always seen it meaning ‘there can be no valid evidence to the contrary’.
So I don’t know what to make of your use of the word true to describe things about which you also say “I’m always willing to hear any evidence to the contrary, at which time I’ll change my position”.
Unless there’s absolute certainty something can be disproved, I didn’t think the word ‘true’ applied.
I didn’t think true meant ‘true unless/until proven otherwise’.
Comment by: Rorgg
11I’ll give some qualifying opinions on that.
I think “Evolution is true” is a completely supportable statement in that the process is observable, testable, falsifiable, and repeatable, and has occurred numerous times. That the process is valid and the theory supports its existance is as true as saying gravity, relativity, or electricity is true.
I don’t think you can flatly say “It is true that human beings have evolved from earlier forms of animals. It is true that all animals share a common ancestry,” however [i]in a rigorous sense[/i]. It’s a hypothesis based on, among other things, the assumed validity of our first proposition.
I believe it to be true based on the available evidence and see no compelling case to the contrary, though, so saying this colloquially is acceptable, but we’ve gone outside common usage here and into epistemology.
Comment by: Eliza
12I agree with Rorgg. And will reiterate, evolution as a process (the change in genetic makeup of a population over generations) has been demonstrated unequivocally to occur. And will reiterate, the fossil evidence for evolution in the origin of species is strong, but doesn’t provide absolute truth (so little in science does…which doesn’t invalidate it as a method). And will reiterate, when talking about “evolution” or “teaching ID along with evolution” I really think people need to define what they mean by “evolution”. (”Evolution as the explanation for the origin of different species”, for example). It has too many meanings floating around out there, and even in here.
Comment by: Siamang
13All of what Rorgg and Eliza said, I agree with.
But in ordinary speech I’ll try not to be a robot, and instead say “evolution is true.”
Comment by: Ir
14Siamang, I definitely don’t want you to be a robot - I like you much better as a human being!
I posted about Certainty and Openness on CatE today because I’d like to find out if I’m using/interpreting language differently from other people.
Anyway I respect that it’s your right to express yourself as you wish and particularly in ways which are non-robotic.
When I posted this blog entry I was thinking that I strongly disagreed with Pastor Tim. Now I’m not so sure, because while I hope my childrens’ science teachers can avoid being robotic, I would not be happy if I found out that their science teachers were telling them ‘Evolution is true’.
I think my children are capable of handling more complexity than that. So I hope the science teachers are presenting the evidence we have and explaining that some of evolutionary theory is inferred, and what it’s inferred from.
But maybe I’m being too idealistic about science teaching to children. Maybe my children are having things stated to them as facts all the time which I would rather not state as absolute facts and I just don’t realize it. Maybe I should get more involved in what they’re being taught.
For what it’s worth I don’t think they’ve been taught about evolution yet. Lately my seventh grader has studied astronomy and the physical properties of matter and my fifth grader has spent a year studying the human body plus some basic things about sound and light. (I think)
Comment by: Siamang
15“Evolution by the mechanism of natural selection” is a scientific theory, and as all theories aren’t technically “proven.”
But the fact of evolution is that we have seen evolution happen in a laboratory, so we do know that it does happen.
It’s like gravity. We have a “Theory of universal gravitation” which cannot be “proven.”
However, “stuff falls” is a fact. And science has no trouble accepting that fact.
Comment by: Siamang
16In other words, using the definitions of science, a theory is something that is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable, and has never been falsified.
Now in science, the word “fact” is something that can possibly change.
It is a fact that it is daytime outside. Later, it will be a fact that it is nighttime outside.
But a theory explains day and night. It explains all the facts and their changing states.
In other words, in scientific lingo, a theory is much stronger than a fact.
It’s the exact opposite in a layperson’s general usage. Which may account for some confusion.
A theory is not a “guess” nor an “educated guess.” A theory is a basically what used to in the old days be called a “Law of Nature.”
I would have no qualms with someone referring to evolution as the “law of evolution”, except that science doesn’t talk like that anymore.
It sure would close up a rhetorical loophole which creationists mine endlessly.
Comment by: Ir
17Siamang, good point about the difference between a theory and facts. I think this is what you’re saying: a theory explains some of the how or why behind the facts so it gives us more information than the facts alone do.
Comment by: cautious
18To quote the Ir, “I think my children are capable of handling more complexity than that. So I hope the science teachers are presenting the evidence we have and explaining that some of evolutionary theory is inferred, and what it’s inferred from.”
I think that most anyone’s children are capable of handling a lot of complexity, but I think that science teachers are being continually told conflicting things on what they can and can’t teach kids. I can’t imagine what it must be like to teach science in Kansas for the last few years.
And the scary thing is that this confusion about what to teach in schools is the plan of anti-evolution forces in this country. As long as creationism can be shown to be solid, and evolution can be shown as wishy-washy, then creationism wins. Same way that Bush won in 2004 by being solid vs. Kerry’s “flip-flopping”.
Also, Nutrideath, “Always remember that just because something is printed in a book that does not mean it is true.”
You are by far my favorite unintentionally funny writer here.