Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-L] Re: god friendly science



As a physicist in Kansas I want to emphasize this is a frighteningly
growing, politically powerful minority within the state. The following
is the letter I sent each state Board of Education member. Receiving
two responses one supporting my position, one respectfully disagreeing.

Dear Members of the Kansas State Board of Education:

My name is Greg Kifer. I have been a resident of Kansas all of my life
(50 years). I am a life-long member of the First Christian Church of
Olathe, Kansas (a denomination for which my grandfather was a minister
for over 60 years), a deacon since the age of 12 and an elder since the
age of 35. Since 1976 I have coached and taught chemistry and physics
in Kansas high schools and junior colleges. My last 23 years have been
at Olathe North High School and Johnson County Community College. I am
a Nationally Board Certified physics teacher have been trained as a
Physics Teaching Resource Agent by the American Association of Physics
Teachers. I have won the George and Florein Liebermann Award for
Excellence in Adjunct Instruction and have been a Kansas State Finalist
for the Presidential Award for Excellence in Science and Mathematics
Teaching three times. I have made over 300 presentations to fellow
teachers in order to share innovations in science education. I present
this as my bona fides for a long-term commitment to quality education
in the State of Kansas.
I have some concerns over the ongoing fracas about Intelligent Design
(ID) in Kansas schools. Regardless of any reason why ID should or
should not be taught in public schools, ID does not belong in any
science class.
I perceive ID proponents to feel that beliefs are fundamental tenets
that must be followed. And most feel that there can be no action, no
argument, no evidence that can shake a true-believer’s adherence to
those tenets. Science on the other had requires that even the most
revered tenet be re-examined upon receipt of any contrary evidence. If
the evidence proves consistent, then the tenet must change. One
approach absolutely precludes the other. They cannot coexist in a
consistent educational approach.
Science is not a collection of facts to be repeated on demand. Rather,
it is a historically successful process for finding patterns and testing
relationships. It is founded on the use of the “testable hypothesis”;
if an idea can’t be investigated in ways that elucidate new information,
it’s just not science. Intelligent Design provides no testable
hypotheses. Therefore, ID (or any other untestable system) has no place
within the science curriculum. Science studies only repeatable events
or single events that leave evidence as to the occurrence and
mechanism. Neither of these apply to ID. If it is felt that this idea
needs to be a part of students’ education, it would better to be
included in a curriculum as an additional example of the techniques and
concepts inherent in that discipline and not thrust into science where
it is a contradiction of the way everything else in the field is taught.

As an educator I am disturbed by the number of people who say, “It’s
only a theory”. This suggests an ignorance of some basic definitions.
A “law” states the mathematical relationships between the variables in a
system. A “theory” provides insight into how the system works. A
theory comments on the mechanism of a law. A theory tells how a law
actually accomplishes its relationships. But, A law is not inherently
more “true” nor more accurate nor better proven than a theory. I can
give you instances where the theory is more accurate than the law -- one
is that Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation is less accurate or “true”
than Einstein’s theory of gravity (the General Theory of Relativity.)
So, to say evolution is a theory only acknowledges that evolution
provides a mechanism for how things change. If one wishes to state that
an idea is unproven it could be called a “hypothesis” or an “unproven
theory”. To say that something is only a theory also ignores the fact
that it is theories that provide advances in understanding. Laws are
useful as a starting point for theories. There has never been, nor
will there ever be a theory that has become a law. It is absolutely
impossible; a law and a theory are just two fundamentally different
kinds of things. And how to classify ID? It’s not even a hypothesis
(a hypothesis must be stated in a way that is testable), much less a
theory.
Evolutionary critics call the field a sham because there are
disagreements among practitioners. I doubt that ID proponents would
similarly claim Jesus Christ to be a fraud because some denominations
disagree over details (e.g. some feel He went into hell after
crucifixion and others do not, some feel the communion bread actually
changes into the proteinaceous Flesh of Christ and others do not). The
intramural disagreements among evolutionists are far less fundamental to
the basic tenets than are the few Christian examples mentioned above.
And, none of this is even pertinent to the situation; squabbles or
paradoxes within one discipline do nothing to make a competing idea any
more valid. The challenging idea has to stand on its own, independent
of what may be happening in any other area.
The bottom line in science is: prove it! Any challenging idea must
more accurately predict the outcomes of testable experiments in order to
be considered. Researchers in all scientific disciplines began pursuing
ideas thought to be unrelated to each other. After a few hundred years
the researchers in these initially disparate fields found themselves in
many of the same places; this common ground forms the foundation of
evolutionary theory. Evolution is not a theory of just biology; it is
supported by all of science, every discipline. A few scientists have
discovered new careers as dissenting voices, but the fundamental tenets
of evolutionary theory are considered facts by a huge preponderance of
the scientific community.
It seems there is a concern that science teachers don’t inform their
students about disagreements within disciplines. That fear is
unfounded. Science students spend a lot of time working with science as
an on-going, self-correcting process. We acknowledge that things we
accept now may change, but that these ideas provided an important
scaffolding upon which to construct a better understanding. In this
environment, it is not legitimate to introduce something that must just
be accepted as a “fact” because it was found in an inspirational book.
Some personal notes: I find it ironic that the original authors of the
Pentateuch never claimed them inerrent. There are no Jewish
denominations that consider these first five books to be absolute fact;
for the first 4000 years no one felt they were to be taken literally.
Only in the mid-1800’s, after Darwin’s ideas became widespread, did
claims of Biblical inerrancy spring up (and has only survived in the
U.S.) I wonder if the staunch supporters of ID similarly support the
rest of the ideas within the Pentateuch? Also, as a Christian, I must
say I am saddened by the arrogance of those who limit God’s abilities to
only what their puny human imaginations can fathom. I presume a God so
awesome and magnificent that my most outrageous flight of imagination
could never begin to conceive the reality. So, to say that the universe
must be directly created because one can’t imagine an eye, etc. being
made any other way, limits God’s abilities to one’s own imagination.
Personally, I find the creation of Creation (i.e. a universe in which
the creation of the very space itself is continually on-going) to be far
more elegant, more beautiful and more majestic than God directly
whipping up over 5000 species of beetle (which I, personally, find
boringly alike -- there are no bugs with wheels!) And if the human knee
was directly-created then I’d have to disagree with the “intelligent”
part of ID.
I appreciate any of you who have read through to the end. I know your
busy schedules and the contentiousness of this issue. I hope I have
provided some fuel for thought.

Greg Kifer
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l