Wednesday 7 December 2005 - Filed under Journal
I’ve had a few interesting comments on my Scott Adams bit from micadelic and I thought I’d bring the discussion to the main stage here…
Evolution is a scientific fact, no question. I’m with you there. My religious friends even agree. What I hear from them is that they believe that humans are not 100% directly a result of evolution. They say; “where’s the missing link?” Why aren’t there species that are somewhere in-between humans and animals? Humans are so much more intelligent than animals, so much more capable of manipulating their environment, contemplating the infinite, understanding the mechanisms of life itself, shit, creating life for that matter. What they say is evolution absolutely explains 99.9% of nature but there is something different about a human that is the result of a divine intervention. We were made in the image of our creator. The rest of creation is there for us, the animals of the land and the sea, etc., etc. I would also have to say that while they accept evolution, they believe that it was evolution that was designed, implemented and shepherded by a higher power.
It’s a valid thought, and discussion is warranted, but not in science class. That is an opinion. There is a leap of faith there. It is not a scientific theory.
If I were religious, I would reconcile it like this:
Science studies natural explanations. As such, science cannot “prove” my belief in divine intervention. Therefore science will uncover or discover the natural explanations and I, myself, in my own spiritual quest, will uncover or discover the influence of the divine. I will not expect science to prove or disprove that which it cannot study. Indeed, part of the answers of the biggest questions in life cannot be answered by science. Hence philosophy, art, culture, religion, etc. Science just addresses the science-y parts.
So, if humans are, as some believe, a result of some degree of divine intervention, or if there is even a possibility that this may be the case, should it not be mentioned in a science class instead of simply stating “Humans are a result of Darwinian evolution, that’s it, no argument, end of class, better get it right on the test.” In other words, forget what your parents and your priests have taught you Johnny, they’re wrong, you evolved from a monkey.
Science class should teach the generally accepted theory. It should also mention competing scientific theories. Intelligent design isn’t a scientific theory. This is not an opinion. There is a rigorous scientific community that studies the subject in question and there are no comparable competing theories, certainly not ID. Science class is the wrong place to contemplate supernatural explanations. Mom and Dad can still teach their kids what they think is right.
Now, I’m not saying I’m with the IDs here, just saying that it’s an interesting debate and I’d like to hear your take on it.
I appreciate your thoughtful comments and I like *any* debate, but this shouldn’t be a debate. Have you ever heard of, for example, a mathematical theorem on late 19th century British literature? Mathematics does not address matters of literature. Biology and physics do not address matters concerning all-powerful dieties. This is as it should be. If intelligent design is true, the design is called evolution.
2005-12-07 » lolife