[Phys-L] Re: god friendly science

[Gary Turner <turner@MORNINGSIDE.EDU>]

It is difficult to do because of our rigid training, but let's take an
objective look at this discussion.  I'm not going to take sides on
intelligent design vs evolution, because I think the real issue runs much
deeper and this is just the particular example that got jumped on.

What is science, and what are the important issues for students to learn?  I
would argue that science is a logical and systematic study of natural
phenomena.  We then attempt to describe the mechanisms that lead to those
observations at deeper and deeper levels of understanding.  There are still
significant parts of "science" that are faith-based, relying upon tenets
such as Occam's Razor rather than direct observational data (which may be
unobtainable).  At this point, I think it is important to present the
available data, the models, and discuss how the data support those models.
It is not sufficient to present incomplete studies and declare them as
absolute truths.  We must get the students to think for themselves.  (Note
that I'm not criticizing the "science" arguments only here, both sides are
equally flawed.  The idea that the "the natural world is
so complex and well-ordered that an  intelligent cause is the best way to
explain  it" is also refutable opinion and should be presented as such.)

Now, onto the "supernatural".  The supernatural tends to get invoked
whenever the data is inconclusive.  Attempting to put a "natural"
explanation on such data is no more scientific than a "supernatural"
explanation.  The truth is that we don't know and it is a best guess given
our background knowledge.  For 2 different people, one with a deep religious
conviction and one with a deep belief that everything is explainable by
cause-and-effect natural order, the two "best guesses" may be quite
different, it does not make one any more valid than the other.  The
inconclusive issue should be presented as such, with the appropriate data
given to support or refute the models in a logical and systematic manner.

With that in mind, let's consider the specific discussion.  There is
obviously a significant fraction of the population that does not trust
evolution as an accurate description of the origin of multiple species.
Again, I don't want to discuss whether or not is is correct, I'm interested
in what the students should be learning.
Suppose evolution is correct (as I suspect most of the readers of this list
will).  The teacher presents the theory.  Mom and Dad say, "well that a load
of *&^*, this is how it is ...."  The poor student has no way of
distinguishing between the two, we have failed as educators.  Now suppose
the teacher presents the data and they investigate the different theories.
Now the student has the information that he/she can use to make his/her own
opinion.  THAT is far more valuable than knowledge of any particular theory.

Gary Turner



On Wed, 18 May 2005 08:11:29 -0400, Robert B Zannelli <Spinoza321@AOL.COM>
wrote:

> From Another list. Posted with permission.
> Bob Zannelli
> ======================
> "They want to rewrite the rules of science," cries Alan  Leshner of AAAS.
> Well Du-uh! Is he just realizing now what the culture war is about? War is
> about seizing turf and holding it. In this case the turf is science itself. The
> CounterEnlightenment is out to seize science and redefine it in
> Aristotelian terms so that it becomes god-friendly again.
>
> Anne
>
> =======================
>
>
>
>
> _http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050516/ap_on_sc/kansas_evolutio
> n_
> (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050516/ap_on_sc/kansas_evolution)
> Kansas Debate Challenges Science Itself
> By JOHN  HANNA, Associated Press Writer
> Mon May 16, 6:33 PM ET
>
> The Kansas  school board's hearings on evolution weren't limited to how the
> theory should  be taught in public schools. The board is considering
> redefining science  itself. Advocates of "intelligent design" are pushing the
> board to reject a  definition limiting science to natural explanations for
> what's observed in  the world.
>
> Instead, they want to define it as "a systematic method of  continuing
> investigation," without specifying what kind of answer is being  sought. The
> definition would appear in the introduction to the state's  science
> standards.
>
> The proposed definition has outraged many  scientists, who are frustrated
> that students could be discussing supernatural  explanations for natural
> phenomena in their science classes.
>
> "It's a  completely unscientific way of looking at the world," said Keith
> Miller, a  Kansas State University geologist.
>
> The conservative state Board of  Education plans to consider the proposed
> changes by August. It is expected to  approve at least part of a proposal
> from advocates of intelligent design,  which holds that the natural world is
> so complex and well-ordered that an  intelligent cause is the best way to
> explain  it
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l