I've written posts on science before (here) so I'll spare the gory details regarding my infatuation. But some things always get me worked up. Creationism/intelligent design is one of them. And yes, I know that some people pay lip service and differentiate creationism and intelligent design by the absence (intentional) of mentioning G-O-D in intelligent design discussion. But I see it for what it really is, just a gussied-up "science-y" version of creationism. And it's hurting our chances as a country for future success.
I'm going to make the argument that the fact that over 40% of Americans believe in creationism as a valid explanation for the origins of life and the fact that, at least in some parts of the country, it is taught side-by-side with evolution, as persuasive evidence that we are, to put it succinctly, screwed. Compare that to the percentage of Americans who believe in Darwinian Natural Selection (around 20%) and we've got a big problem.
The problem is that a basic understanding of science requires at least a preference for Darwinian evolution -- it is the only explanation grounded in true science. Pro-ID groups use "science" and "the scientific method" but only as misleading propaganda. Their theory boils down to this: since we can't explain it, and it looks pretty complex, then it must be designed by an intelligent being, because hell, if we can't explain it, who can? It relies on the circular argument rooted in a religious mentality that it's only us (humans) and an intelligent being (god) that can have any bearing on the natural world if we can't explain a particularly vexing natural system. I think its a rather arrogant way of viewing the world -- holding a candle to real science up to the point where it ceases explaining a certain topic and then ascribing the rest to an intelligent being, supposedly smarter than us humans.
It's an entirely modern construct as well. Where science is the gradual unlocking of the secrets of the universe, intelligent design is just another way for scientific skeptics to cling to a theory which still places humans at the top of the worldly intellectual food chain. The theory can never advance, it is left to being a placeholder for the areas where science still seeks answers. So, science will continue to unravel the mysteries of our natural world while intelligent design, creationism, or some other construct will attempt to (temporarily) fill increasingly small voids in our knowledge.
But, while it still has a firm grasp on the American public's mind, it can't be ignored -- like the kid you really don't want to talk to at school because, well, he's just a bit "off", but who follows you around regardless... yeah, creationism is that kid. Proponents argue that it is "scientific" to ask questions and be skeptics regarding the established theories in science. OF COURSE IT IS!! They are missing the point. Science, specifically evolution, is not a static subject. There is a reason why Darwin's "Origin of Species" is not the text book in evolutionary biology, nor Newton's "Principia Mathematica" in physics class -- not because they are wrong, but because the body of knowledge surrounding these important scientific foundational works has so drastically increased that we need updated text to explain the current knowledge. If skepticism wasn't part of science, well then it wouldn't be science.
But the underlying, insidious bedfellow (I love that word) to a belief in creationism, or at least a complicity towards having it taught in our schools (playing it off as relatively harmless) is that it teaches young people in our country to be distrustful of science. A distrust of science leads to a distrust of rational information and thought and skews towards "leaps of faith" behavior that ignores rationality. I remember seeing a plaque from a creationism museum that had two figures, one of science, with a rational "line of thought" bouncing from one idea to the next before arriving at an end, the essence of science. The next figure was a straight line from the start to the end; the faith line. I don't discount the power of faith or religion. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. But religious or non-scientific ventures into the realm of science should be kept out of the science classroom. There are hardly enough resources to competently evaluate the valid scientific theories!
Raising a country or, worse, existing as a country where the lion's share of citizens mistrust science is not a country poised for a promising future. Our future as a human population hinges upon our ability as a nation to once again become leaders, inventing the technologies that will be crucial our advancement. America still has the best and the brightest; our universities really are the gold standard across the world. But to have a successful country in the future will require a general public apt to get behind the innovators. To market their inventions, write about their advances, and advocate for their funding. This can't happen with creationism in our schools. To be able to understand the problems of the future (and present -- climate change, biotechnology, healthcare, etc.) we need a public equipped with the tools to understand these complex challenges.
This highlights the general need for more education funding for the sciences, but it bespeaks of the fundamental need for science education to be unencumbered by non-science alternate theories which only muddle and confuse and turn people off of science. The future should not be decided by people who are self-professed "I'm not a science person" people, but of a public who enjoys a basic literacy of science and the origins of life.
[Edit: see the op-eds of two figureheads of the conservative movement, Charles Krauthammer and George F. Will. Both are egregiously wrong on a lot of issues, but not this one. Synopsis: don't go there, conservatives.]
No comments:
Post a Comment