| 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] |
-----Original Message-----_______________________________________________
From: Forum for Physics Educators
[mailto:PHYS-L@list1.ucc.nau.edu] On Behalf Of Gary Turner
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 5:24 PM
To: PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU
Subject: Re: god friendly science
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