Stephen T-B

In the discussions about Creationism v. Evolution in our schools, I feel that something is being left out.
The scientific theory of evolution is the product of a long, continuing process of questioning: Creationism is a religious dogma which permits no questioning at all.
It seems to me – and I don't think I am mistaken – that curiosity lies at the heart of Science which only progresses and leads to increased knowledge when orthodoxy is critically examined.
The questioning process provokes answers which must be questioned in their turn, and the new answers questioned too; indeed, should the questioning ever cease it will not be because we know all there is to know; it will be because we have grown lazy and our curiosity is blunted.
If our schools and colleges are to be truly educational they must stimulate the inquiring mind, the role of teachers and lecturers being to direct it and to develop intellectual rigor so that the inexperienced might recognise a fallacious argument and a flawed conclusion.
This is not the same as religious instruction. Creationism provides one answer and invites no questions; indeed, to question the veracity of Divine Revelation must amount to a form of blasphemy.
The issue raised by the Creationsim v. Evolution debate is therefore this: do we want our educational system to produce men and women capable of independent, rational thought or is its purpose to produce religious devotees?
My one fear, I should mention, about Dawinism is that it should become a dogma which it is deemed an irreverence to question.
Darwinism must be examined and questioned for it is only a theory; we may become increasingly convinced that it points to the truth but if our scientists settle for that truth without poking at it and around it in a ruthless quest for flaws, we merely replace one dogma with another. The processes of evolution must be open to continuing, open debate if Darwin's legacy is to shelter under the name of Science.

hezekiah jones

Hi Stephen. Good post.

Your fear is shared by the so-called "intelligent design" movement in this country. In fact, the claim is made that Darwinism has already become an unassailable "dogma." The ID movement is also quite fond of using religion-laden words like "dogma," "orthodoxy," and "evolutionary priesthood."

It's no wonder that this movement receives a considerable amount of political support from the religious conservatives and the "creation science" movement. In fact the tactics and techniques both groups use are often virtually indistinguishable.

"Only" a theory, true. But an extremely well supported theory, with great explanatory power relating to both the diversity and similarity of life on earth that happens to be reinforced by discoveries made in virtually every other scientific discipline aside from biology.

I am fairly confident that this is the case. However whatever challenges are mounted must be, as you yourself insist, subject to the most rigorous procedural scrutiny within the scientific community, not political end runs and appeals to the threatened moral and religious beliefs of the public.

RufusAtticus

Check out the field of evolutionary biology. "Darwinism" is tested all the time.

Peez

Hi Stephen,

You are correct about the distinction between creationism as dogma and science as inquiry. I would further refine that though by pointing out that science uses empirical observations to test hypotheses about the natural universe, while creationism is not testable in this way. Your point that Darwinian evolution, like anything else in science, should not become dogma is correct. As scientists, we must always recognize that we may be in error about virtually everything. On the other hand, I think that you may be confused about a couple of things. First, you state that "Darwinism... is only a theory." This implies that you do not understand evolution, nor what a scientific theory is. There are two aspects to evolution: the evolution of living species from a common ancestor (often called the fact of evolution), and the mechanism by which this evolution occurred (the theory of evolution). The former is as established as the heliocentric nature of our solar system, the latter is a theory not because it is tentative, but because it provides a conceptual framework that explains a variety of observations (especially the history of life on earth). Within the scientific community, we continue to question and test, continue to try to understand evolution better. If someone were to present evidence that there are any flaws in the fact or theory of evolution, we would be happy to re-evaluate things. But in the mean time, there is no more point in questioning common descent than there is in questioning that th earth orbits the sun.

Peez

Stephen T-B

I am a novice here, so ask to be forgiven for being clumsy: if I’d thought there was any danger of the Intelligent Design folk drawing comfort from my remarks about Darwinism, I should have kept quiet. I especially dislike their sophistry in pretending to take an objective view when in fact they are simply peddling a religious belief. Creationists would do anything, it seems, to persuade the World that they are reasonable and rational and therefore to be taken seriously.
All-the-same, I still think that orthodoxy of every sort should be subjected to continuous examination, whatever the perceived or real dangers of that may be.

Skydancer

Clumsiness is not really a problem. I doubt that any of us on the side of science want it to become dogmatic. The suspicion was generated by the apparent acceptance of the _terms_ that the IDists and Creationists use, or their misdefinition. 'Only a theory' is frequently a red flag indicating a person who's about to deny reality in favor of their beliefs, so folks tend to react badly to the phrase....

BLoggins02

IMHO, I think that whenever someone brings up a "theory" that is counter to all scientific knowledge and then suggests that we pursue it and allow it to be taught in schools, we should ask: "What's the motivation?"

It seems clear to me that Creationists and IDers have no intention or interest in explaining how the world works, they simply want people to buy into their ideology.

OTOH, the scientific Theory of Evolution, while it may have become associated with non-theism, has no such political baggage. In other words, I'm sure individual scientists do their best to keep their own theories favorable, but in the end it is not about pushing any agenda other than science, which is simply the natural curiosity to explain the how of our universe.

Just as I don't believe we should be promoting theism in our schools, I also of course don't believe we should be promoting non-theism when evolution is taught. In other words: worry about the how, leave the philosophical whys to the churches and discussion boards such as this, they have no business in a science classroom.