Re: Creationism in Minnesota

["Dan Laitsch" <dlaitsch@ascd.org>]

Hi Scott,
Thanks for the excellent posts. I've enjoyed your comments and subtle humor (*42). I have a couple of thoughts I'd like to throw into the mix. Let me start by saying upfront that my comments will be broad, rather than specific, since I know almost nothing about subtleties of ID, and that while I accept evolution as a valid scientific theory, I know little about the current research debates and questions being brought to that debate within the scientific community.

Within the "philosophy of science" there are fairly rigid requirements for "theories" based on repeated verification and experimentation of hypothesis. Within the theory of evolution, my understanding is that that research does exist and that the body of scientific research does support evolution as a "scientific theory." 

I cannot imagine that ID rises to the same level...that of a "scientific theory" supported by repeated experimentation and corroboration. If it does, then of course we should be discussing it in K-12 schools, but if it doesn't, then we shouldn't. If, for example, ID is really a hypothesis in need of testing, then fine, let scientists test it, but it should not be promoted as a competing theory. If proponents call something a "theory," that does not actually make it a "scientific theory" to be taught in science courses. This fundamental lack of understanding is where I see the real problem.

Under the broader "philosophy of science," a decent set of procedures and protections against such politicization exists. As you point out, scientists (hopefully) are equipped with the ethical and philosophical tools to engage in the complexity of debates around these complex issues of theory, hypothesis, experimentation, verification, observation, etc, but the general public is not necessarily grounded in these principles. 

It is this general lack of understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of science that initially opens the door to the debate. This lack of understanding also has implications in other policy arenas, and here I think specifically about the No Child Left Behind Act's emphasis on "scientifically based research" and its definition of SBR as being research that emphasizes "experimental or quasi-experimental designs, with a preference for random-assignment experiments." Here we have the opposite problem you identify...going from a lack of experimental evidence (ID) to a refusal to accept anything other than experimental evidence. (It is a little more complex given differences in theory verses hypothesis, and  The problem is the same, a lack of understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of science and research by policymakers...and their resultant efforts to make policy that guides science.

So it seems to me that, in addition to debating our own specific areas (evolution on the one hand, SBR on the other) we also need to work to help policymakers (and the general public) understand what science and research are (and aren't) and can (and can't) do. While it may make our efforts more difficult, would it make them more effective if we included a brief discussion of our issues within the broad framework of a philosophy of science?

Shouldn't the scientific community come together to work with policymakers in understanding these broad ethical and philosophical issues? Is there a national professional organization of scientists devoted to this topic across disciplines that can advocate locally and nationally (and even internationally) for sound scientific policy (NAS, NRC, AAAS)? A quick look at AAAS suggests that they should be playing this role (at least with ID), but I don't see much about advocacy or governmental relations on their web site.

Dan

**********************************************
Dan Laitsch, Ph.D.
Senior Policy Analyst
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
1703 North Beauregard Street
Alexandria, VA 22311
(703) 578-9600



-----Original Message-----
From: arn-l-owner@interversity.org
[mailto:arn-l-owner@interversity.org]On Behalf Of Scott Hays
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 9:06 AM
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Subject: Re: [arn-l] Creationism in Minnesota


Joseph Bottini writes:

"Your statement that neither creationsim nor ID are generally accepted
among scientists . . is incorect.   Unfortunately, most evolutionists
refuse to read anything contrary to their view and thereby miss all the
possible information out there indicating a possibility of something other
than "mush to man" theory.  Log onto AIG network at ... "

"Answers in Genesis" sort of illustrates the source of the ID argument,
doesn't it?  Intelligent Design theory, regardless of protestations to the
contrary, is biblical creationism in sheep's clothing.  Sure there are
questions about evolution ... there are LOTS of them.  Some of the hardest
questions are asked by scientists, not by God-fearing "scientists" who
already know all the answers because they have been revealed.  Science is
not about "revelation", revealed Truth, or even Ultimate Causes.  All of
those "scientists" at ID can certainly ask their questions, and their
questions are certainly worthy of exploration in the world of science --
but NOT with the purpose of refuting an explanation, nor with the purpose
of disguising an unstated "answer".  That is not how science works, and to
pretend it is is to act nonscientifically.

But this discussion is too difficult for the average "man-in-the-street" to
comprehend, since scientific literacy is not exactly a forte of the people
of this nation.  Which is precisely what adherents of ID hope for ... like
a president counting on essentially uncritical support for a war by
manipulating the truth (because the truth is either unprovable or beyond
the ability of most people to have the patience to read in its entirety) --
whether the truth be in who REALLY sank a particlar boat or in whether or
not WMDs or al-Quida really reside within the presidential walls of a
nefarious (and useful) dictator (how many different ways did we "use"
Saddam Hussein, by the way?) ... people (in general) and the American
public (in particular) are not going to sit around while a bunch of
eggheads try to explain complex bodies of knowledge in a way that can be
easily understood.  "Hey," says Jo(seph) Citizen, "It's 'fair' to hear both
sides of the story"

Science is not "fair", Joseph.  It is not something that is agreed to
because it yields the "best possible good" (that it yields the "best
possible good" is often open to debate).  And science is not a body of
knowledge in which the Ultimate Answer (*42) is already known.

In fact, for ID to have any credibility in the world of science, it is not
enough to merely ask questions.  I await the day that these "scientists"
provide persuasive and replicable evidence that creation is the work of a
Designer.

Finally, you claim that "evolutionists refuse to read anything contrary to
their point of view."  How broad a brush to you wish to smear the world of
science?  Do ALL "evolutionists" refuse to read things that contradict
their world view?  Or is it only "some" evolutionists who refuse to read
the work of Mr. Wells?

I have to admire the brains behind ID.  They are very clever.  Every
effort, in the past, to impose the belief system of a minority on the rest
of us has failed.  But they keep trying.  And they keep refining their
methods.  They have hit upon a pretty potent one this time around.  It's
hard to fight the "fairness" argument, especially when it is so broad as to
suggest that "all" of science is open to question, when it is really only
one part of science that they want to call into question.  The ironic part
of this is that this is exactly how science works -- if credible questions
are asked, or if new evidence presents itself, science adjusts.  This
means, at base, that the questions asked by ID scientists are not credible
(no matter how logical they sound), or else they would be rocking the world
of science

Scott Hays