Can a sticker really bring down a theory?
Here is a rabbit that I have been chasing for a couple of days now. Up to this point, even though some topics that I have covered are somewhat controversial, I really am not a confrontational person so I have typically avoided topics such as the one that I am about to get into (and probably another one that I am thinking about writing before the week is out actually :) ), but I have just recently joined in on a conversation discussing Intelligent Design vs. Darwin (see Articles about ID ).
(For those who do not have any idea what I am talking about, ID states that there is a God who created the universe, and he intelligently designed all that is in it, and of course we all know Darwin's theory of evolution because that is what we were taught in school.)
Currently, my position is that there should be more emphasis on the fact that Darwin's theory is indeed a theory. I feel that students should at least be made aware that there are other options out there instead of presenting evolution as the only viable option (which is what I feel that some science departments do), even if that requires giving a brief overview of the ID stance in a public school setting. That does not mean that I feel the Science departments should adopt the ID position, nor do I feel that they should teach it as the truth either, I just would like the students to be made aware that Darwin could be wrong.
Recently, in Cobb County, GA there was a court ruling that directly relates to this conversation:
According to Foxnews, 34,452 stickers were placed on Science books around that county. The disclaimer stickers read "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
Within the "Bible Belt" of the south, this was somewhat of a "moral" victory for ID supporters, which of course led to an appeal from anti-ID'ers that was eventually upheld.
Therefore, now all of those 34,452 stickers have been removed.
My question today is, "Why is this sticker such a threat to evolutionists?"
The fact that students should not take everything at face value without research, is a fact of life anyway...they will really find that out in college. Honestly, I would not be an ID supporter had I not been convicted in my own heart eight years ago when I became a Christian. I didnt learn that in the public school system. And just because I am in Seminary does not mean that I take everything that my profs say as truth without some digging of my own.
Before you leave a comment, I ask one thing...if your intent in leaving a comment is purely to bash the Christian worldview, please refrain...there is enough bashing going back and forth in the world already. I feel as though I have not attacked people who hold an opposing view to my own with any of my comments that I have made, please be respectful enough not to attack me...Thanks :).
posted by Kevin Yates @ 7:59 AM
9 comments
9 Comments:
I hesitate on commenting on this because it is a very controversial topic, and, since I'm a scientist, I am by definition, biased.
However, having said that, I think one reason some fight to teach evolution over creationism in school is that they believe one is science and the other is religion so that the two have nothing to do with each other. Science is based on evidence and religion is based on faith. It's hard to compare apples to oranges. Evoloution is more than a theory. It is called a theory because in the scientific method, nothing can ever be proven without some percentage of doubt. Hypotheses can only be disproven. Once there is strong evidence from many independent groups and studies over time, it eventually becomes a theory. Theory of relativity, theory of evolution, Pythagorean theorem, etc. Scientists do experiments and studies every day based on the evidence that evolution provides. For instance, a gene expressed in two different species will have a certain % of homology. This only makes sense in the context of evolution. I look for specific protein domains in a mammalian gene based on the homology of the same gene in yeast in order to form hypotheses and experiments. It has allowed us to understand many principles of biology and physiological processes and how proteins function. Because so much is built up on evolution, researchers and professors want others to understand evolution and also the evidence for the theory.
In addition, there is a copious amount of evidence supporting the theory of evolution that is difficult to dismiss. Carbon dating, PCR, sequence homology, gene conservation, and so forth. Studies in bacteria using selective growth conditions can also provide a setting where evolution can be modeled and occur in a short time period.
Personally, I don't know why the two are mutually exclusive. I believe in God, and I believe in evolution. I think it is even more amazing that He created a world that could evolve from simplistic models of origin. Simply genius.
i agree with rachel...since gaining a better understanding both of science and of religion i have come to belief that creates a dialogue between the two rather than choosing one over the other.
i think science/evolution theory does a beautiful job of supporting creation, not discounting it. it's a small look into God's design and how it all happened. the story of creation as recorded in the Bible is just that -- a story. something to help early humans to wrap their brain around the concept of an ultimate being setting things in motion.
Biblical literalists have a very hard time with these concepts because they feel the need to have everything agree letter for letter with what the Bible states. i think this is a dangerous way to believe and ultimately detrimental to a person's faith. getting wrapped up in such particulars can be very distracting and a tool of Satan to pry us away from God's truth.
rachel,
the same reason that you hesitated on commenting was the same reason i hesitated on writing on this topic...i had been mulling it over for a couple of days, ever since i started commenting on that other blog...but i came accross this situation in Ga yesterday on foxnews, and i had not realized how hot of a topic this debate was right now.
i, studying theology, of course am by definition deemed biased as well.
i understand their reasoning for not teaching creationism in school, but i also disagree with that reasoning...especially from a creationist's viewpoint. from a Christian worldview, and as you mention at the end of your comment, the fact that God has a hand in science means that there is overlap, and i dont understand why they are always deemed mutually exclusive either. that is why i feel that the creationists' viewpoint can at least be given at an introductory level in the science classroom.
that being said, i also want to say that i do believe that evolution does exist to a point. i understand the fact that species can evolve to adjust to their environment for many reasons (i.e. survival, extreeme temps and the like). where i start to disagree is when it gets to the point of changing from one species to a new species. however, since i am not a scientist at all :) (havent even stepped foot in a science classroom, college or otherwise, in about 7 or 8 years), and since i have not done much study on the topic, i know that i need to look a little deeper into the topic in the near future, and therefore understand the debate better to carry on this topic of conversation farther than the initial topic of this blog entry...if nothing else, at the very least, so i can defend my faith better.
i was able to understand some of what you said, but i need to research some first before i try to comprehend all of it...i must admit, that my brain has been stretched quite a bit in the last few days (it has gotten as good a workout as my body has lol)...almost to the point of giving me a headache as i am trying to take it all in and absorb what i am reading lol.
not to mention just having a fear of offending you :).
Erin,
I dont agree with the thought that taking the Bible literally leads to the detriment of one's faith.
I think there are things that are meant to be literal, as well as things that are meant to be hyperbolic. A great deal of it has to do with the genre that the original author is meaning to portray when he wrote that original text.
For instance in the Old Testament there is Historical Prose, Poetry, Prophecy, and Law Codes scattered throughout. To determine whether or not something is meant to be taken literal is dependant upon the genre that the author is writing in. Furthermore, even within that genre there can be details or aspects that have room to be interpreted in a hyperbolic sense.
Without getting into too many details in this comment (i may have a blog entry about this later), the Genre of that particular section of Genesis does not necessarily give room for a non-literal intent of the original author (whom i believe to be Moses, contrary to some views out there).
i do, however, with first hand knowledge, understand the dangers of getting wrapped up in certain details.
There are essentials to the faith that cannot be challenged, and yet there are many other things that are not hills worth dieing over...ID, though I do not feel as though I will ever change my view on it, is not a view that would cause me to disassociate myself from a Christian orginization that may hold an evolutionist's view that I might be a part of (of course, part of that would be how loudly they are shouting that I am wrong :)).
Another theological example would be escatology (the study of end times)...there are those out there who believe that a rapture is going to happen before the years of tribulation. I am not in that camp, but again, this is a topic that is not worth "going to blows" over.
Essentials are bascially centered around Jesus's Christology. Who he is and what he came to do. Those are issues that I will die for.
Rachel/Erin,
Thanks to both of you for your input and comments...I do hope to continue this discussion on a deeper level in the near future, but one i have to do some reading, and secondly, it is time to go home from work :).
My commentary on here will be less than full of the great substance that has been posted thus far. I hold to the Christian Worldview and don't claim to have much knowledge in the technical scientific world. (Give me HTML anyday!) Quite possibly creation isn't the "story" to help us grasp creation, but maybe evolution is a mechaniscm for us to see the intricacies of a complex creation that only God could design, create, and evolve.
Kev,
Check out Dr. Moore's blog entry for 5/25...ironically, it is a stat on MDs and ID
Hi Kevin,
I had a lot of thoughts to say, but Rachel and Erin Nicole pretty much beat me to it. :) But, I'll repeat some of the more important things.
For starters, it's important to know that "theory" in a scientific context doesn't mean "guess", as people tend to use it in an every day sense. Note the top definition available here In particular, note that it says "especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted". This is what scientists mean when we say "theory".
As Rachel notes, science doesn't really ever produce "facts" -- that's not how it works. We can learn various things with various levels of certainty -- some things very nearly certain -- but there are no "facts" per se. That said, evolution is about as close as science ever gets to "fact". It's been called the "unifying principle of all biology". Remember that evolution is a theory that even scientists were initially skeptical of, but after over 100 years of research by some really brilliant people, it's become clear that it is correct.
This is why the stickers were removed. The stickers give the false impression that scientists are not uniformily behind evolution, and that there is some chance that evolution is incorrect. Strictly speaking, there is some chance, but that chance is incredibly, ridiculously remote. There is also some chance that everything in that science book (or, any other book for that matter) is incorrect -- to single out evolution creates unreasonable and unfair doubt in the mind of those students.
Now, there is something else that is important that scientists don't emphasize enough:
Evolution, when taught properly, in no way denies the existence of any deity of any kind.
True, it denies a literal reading of Genesis 1, but the conflict with religion really does end there. As long as you're willing to accept that Genesis 1 is parable and not historically accurate, then there should be no difficulty in accepting evolution.
Hope that helps!
Dear Josh,
I just wanted to respond to your remark:
"As long as you're willing to accept that Genesis 1 is parable and not historically accurate, then there should be no difficulty in accepting evolution."
What you are proposing here is no small matter for the serious Christian. For starters, it requires Christians to break with nearly 2,000 years of tradition. One of the few things that Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox have held in common is that Genesis provides a faithful narrative of how God created the world (at least until philosophical naturalism became the controlling presupposition of biblical interpreters, 1800's and following). So it's not a small thing to ask Christians to forsake the historic faith.
Second, there is no evidence that the author of Genesis ever intended his narrative to be understood as a parable. You don't really find the parabolic genre in the Pentateuch, much less in Genesis. You wouldn’t want to interpret a text as parabolic if the author didn’t intend for it to be read in that way.
Third, everyone needs to make sure that they are not confusing Intelligent Design with Creationism. They are not the same.
Well, there's just too much here to respond to, but at least I've made a start.
Luf,
Denny
Hi Denny,
Thanks a lot for your comments. Just a few things for you guys to consider:
"For starters, it requires Christians to break with nearly 2,000 years of tradition."
Was it also breaking tradition for the church to accept that the Earth was not flat, or that the Earth was not the center of the solar system? Or that the sun is a small to medium sized star (in apparent contradiction to its label as a "great light" in Genesis 1)?
"Second, there is no evidence that the author of Genesis ever intended his narrative to be understood as a parable. You don't really find the parabolic genre in the Pentateuch, much less in Genesis."
Some questions for those who hold that Genesis 1 is literally true:
(1) What does the notion of "day" mean when the Earth wasn't created until Day 3, and the Sun wasn't created until Day 4? How can there be "evening and morning" in the absence of an Earth and sun?
(2) Let's suppose for a moment that science is correct. What is the word for "billion" in Hebrew? There isn't one. So if God wanted to have Moses write, "12 billion year ago..." he couldn't have -- Moses would have had to resort to parable.
(3) Even within the Bible itself, it's hard not to take either Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 as parable. It's clear in Genesis 1 that plants are created (Day 3) THEN humans (Day 6).
Genesis 1:12 (Day 3) -- "The Earth brought forth vegetation: seed bearing plants of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it."
Then in Genesis 2 it says:
"When the Lord God made eacrh and heaven -- when no plant of the field was yet on earth and no grasses of the field had yet sprouted...the Lord God formed man from the dust of the Earth."
Notice that the order is reversed -- Genesis 1, it's plants, then humans. In Genesis 2, it's humans, then plants.
Third, everyone needs to make sure that they are not confusing Intelligent Design with Creationism. They are not the same.
True enough. The irony is that Creationism -- the claim that the Earth is 6,000 years old, etc. -- does qualify as science. It's just been disproven. On the other hand, ID -- the statement that the universe was created by an intelligent being -- isn't a testable hypothesis, and therefore isn't subject to scientific study.
Peace,
Josh
i don't want to cause too many heads to roll...but there are other writings in Genesis that i think are meant as "stories".
the one that blew me away back in the day was the story of Noah. pre-dating the Bible is the story of Gilgamesh and his journey. every culture in every nation has a story about the flood. what name does the protagonist have? probably not Gilgamesh and probably not Noah.
this brings me back to Biblical literalists. i have had so many people fight me on the topic of the dude's name. what does it matter?? that isn't the point of the story. i think it's dangerous for Christians to get hung up on the literal translation of the Bible. it can make you lose sight of what truths you are supposed to be seeking. this is why i feel it can be detrimental to one's faith.
Post a Comment
<< Home