Re: Evolution and Creationism

[Peter Schoch <pschoch@NAC.NET>]

"Kenneth J. Morgan" wrote:
> I have been once again astonished at the appalling superiority complex
> reflected in the recent thread of e-mails on creationism. However, this
> subject, even among scientists, tends to stir the emotions somewhat.
> Therefore, I will perhaps be forgiven an occasional slip into sarcasm in
> what follows.

***********
It seems the tone of your note is a bit more than sarcastic.  I believe
the question that was to be discussed here was the frustration in
teaching currently accepted scientific fact, versus a science based on
more theological precepts.
***********

...
> This transparent, condescending slur is intended to imply that Christian
> schools are educationally inferior and strongholds of indoctrination. I
> have little doubt that Christian schools provide a far more academically
> rigorous education than the public schools. For example, while public
> schools are teaching multiculturalism, Christian schools still teach that
> sentences begin with capital letters and do not start with "and."

********
We have fine religious and public schools here, and we have wretched
religous and public schools here.  I did not see the statement as meant
to be over-arching in nature.  I believe it was written out of
frustration with the situation.

I have taught Physics to a variety of students, and I have never had
this level of frustration.  Even when discussing concepts that made some
of the more religiously devout students in the class uneasy, a free and
open  exchange of views was always available.  I can see, however, that
if that free and open exchange were changed to a resistance I would be
frustrated.

Oh, and yes I lament the rapid degredation of our students' ability to
use proper grammar, sentence structure, etc.  Yes, our English faculty
have agreed that the informality of the Internet and email have aided in
the degredation.  However, to criticize (nit pick) a colleage for it in
a 'scholarly' discussion seems unnecessary.
********

> Then there was a reply (I lost the name) that raised two questions:
>
> "Do you just teach it properly anyway?"
>
> "And do you ever... make any progress?"
>
> The subject line in this reply e-mail, "how do you manage [sic]," conjures
> up the image of exasperated, hand-wringing scholars seeking mutual support
> in the arduous task of coping with ignorant buffoons who would presume to
> raise objections to the evolutionary model.

*******
No, I would say it conjurs up the image of someone who has had the same
(or similar) problem, and is seeking help in structuring a new
educational methodology to help in this matter.
*******

> The first question reeks of arrogance. "Teach it properly?" Well, of
> course, the only proper way to teach this subject is to teach evolution as
> fact. Indeed! Christian schools are accused of teaching creationism as
> fact. Now evolution and creationism are both models. I am confident that
> most Christian schools present the material in this way. The same cannot be
> said for many public schools.
>
> Note the word "progress" in the second question. Here the writer
> inadvertently revealed his real attitude: to indoctrinate with the
> philosophy of evolution. A scientist would teach all competing models.

*******
In a 16 week semester, do you have time to teach everything?  I
certainly don't, and I don't try to teach everything.  I teach
experimental facts, and those theories that are currently accepted to
most closely explain those experimental  facts/results.

Science evolves with each new discovery, and thus we evolve our teaching
with it.  Newtonian mechanics isn't 100% correct, should I not teach it
anymore?  Hardly.  I teach it with the caveat to my students that it is
good enough for some cases, a good approximation for others, and flat
out fails in some areas.

In the context of the current discussion, why can't we teach to the
currently accepted science and scientific evidence?  If we are creating
a group of individuals who are to be sparked to further investigation,
they should find other avenues and other ideas on their own.  If they
then drive those theories/models to be a more accurate representation of
the experimental evidence, then we should be happy to have created those
new scholars.
********

> However, zealotry is not interested in competing models or in honestly
> assessing the problems with a model to which it is committed.
>
> If anyone thinks there are no problems with the evolutionary model, I would
> suggest he spend a little less time lamenting the fact that not everyone
> views contemporary Darwinian evolution as beyond all question and a little
> more time reading the following books:
>
> Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton
> Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe
>
> Both are written by competent scientists working in the field. They might
> shatter various and sundry illusions devoutly held by true believers in the
> evolutionary model. However, intellectual integrity would demand that those
> who teach evolution should present the current problems with the model.
>
> Now to Lois Krause's reply to this compassionate and sympathetic question,
> "How do you manage?"
>
> "first of all, i tell them that i'm not out to change their religious
> beliefs, but that creationism is a religious belief, and all the rest is
> science"
>
> Perhaps she is fooling herself, but teaching that creationism is a
> religious belief and that "the rest" (evolution) is science is clearly
> attempting to change a religious belief.

********
I would not say so.

My undergraduate school was Franklin and Marshall College, Lancaster
PA.  We are directly across the street from the United Church of Christ
Theological Seminary, where the College rents dormitory space.  For my
final two years at F&M, I lived at the Seminary and made many friends
with the seminarians.

They came from all backgrounds, not the least of which was Computer
Science BS, EE BS, Cheistry BS, etc.  Some of our greatest discussions
were on the religious implications of scientific theories.  How does
experimental fact fit in with Christian beliefs?  They were not zealots,
they did not pound their chests and claim absolute right of divination.
They debated, they questioned, they disagreed, but we all grew from the
exchange of views.  You must picture this group of seminarians with F&M
students from all religious backgrounds (it seemed), all approaching
these topics from a different viewpoint.  The debate was healthy, and it
was not restricted to a classroom.

If we have faith in our students ability to reason and think, then why
are we so egotistical as to believe that a one semester course will
indoctrinate them against their beliefs?  We are here to teach currently
accepted theory, and to teach them how to use the scientific method.  If
they use it later to refute us, using sound data and methodology, we
should rejoice in that we were a part of creating that scholar!
*********

> Creationism is a model that attempts to account for the origin of the
> universe and life on the basis of observed data. So is evolution. If God
> created the universe, for the sake of argument, might there not be evidence
> observable in the universe? Might there not also be evidence of the manner
> or mechanisms he used in the creation of the universe? So if a scientist
> sees these evidences and builds a model that incorporates the observable
> data, does that mean he is engaging in religion rather than science? I
> would argue no. The only way to argue yes would be to assume a priori with
> Carl Sagan that the natural universe is all there ever was, all there is,
> and all there ever will be. However, that is naturalism: a philosophical or
> religious statement. It is not science. Science simply observes what is.
...
> "many find they begin to breathe again, having had creationism rammed down
> their throats, and told by clergy that they weren't christian if they didn't
> believe in creationism, and i have given them a way to support their faith
> AND learn correct science."
>
> Here we see more evidence of zealotry and proselytizing. A thing to be
> proud of, to be sure: take students who have had creationism rammed down
> their throats and begin ramming evolutionism down their throats! The phrase
> "learn correct science" is simplistic arrogance. Clearly, what we have here
> is not science but indoctrination. Both evolution and creationism are
> models to account for the origin of the universe, the earth, and life on
> the earth. Both have observations that tend to support the model, and both
> have observations that represent problems for the model. As I have pointed
> out, whole books have been written by scientists--not religious
> men--pointing out the problems with the evolutionary model. However,
> zealotry is unaffected by such problems: to the zealot, evolution is simply
> "correct science."
>
> "yes, sometimes it's depressing.  but somehow i keep coming back for
> more.  i guess for the same reasons i left almost 3 times the salary in
> industry to go into teaching 10 years ago."
>
> Ah, yes. Oozing with sympathy, empathy, and compassion, I understand: the
> truth is worth it all!

******
No, I belive the intent was to make the STUDENTS worth it all.  I do not
teach for the 'truth', because truth is as amorphous a concept as
'science' is.  If we give the students a view of how we as scientists
arrive at our theories and models, then we make them better able to
reason out their own conclusions.

That end-product of a thinking, reasoning, individual IS TRULY WORTH IT
ALL!

Peter Schoch
Sussex County Community College