Funding Flap
In “Flies and Projectors and Bears, Oh My” [Anti Gravity], Steve Mirsky ridicules Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin for criticizing federal funding for specific scientific projects. Mirsky must not believe that those who benefit from research should pay for it. He notes that the fruit-fly research Palin cited would benefit olive growers in California. So why, then, shouldn’t California and the growers be responsible for the funding? And Illinois should pay for its planetarium’s projector. Research at the public’s cost is not an entitlement but a subject open to debate.
J. J. Marinello
West Hartford, Conn.
MIRSKY REPLIES: I could have considered McCain’s and Palin’s attacks on federal funding as opportunities to mull over whether the projects were prudent uses of federal money. But that wasn’t the criticism the candidates offered: they clearly argued that the projects were self-evidently ridiculous, as Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal did by ridiculing “something called volcano monitoring” in his reply to President Barack Obama’s speech before a joint session of Congress. This apparently deep-rooted disrespect for science is counterproductive.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
39 Comments
Add CommentShame on Scientific American for printing without comment or correction Robin A. Cox's misunderstanding of scientific terminology. There is no "law" of evolution; in scientific usage a "law" is not stronger than a "theory," and a theory cannot become a law, regardless of the strength of evidence. A law is nothing more than a description of what happens in a physical system under given circumstances, and makes no attempt at explanation. While in colloquial usage "theory" can mean a hypothesis or even a mere guess, when the term is used in a scientific context it properly is reserved for a coherent, testable and falsifiable predictive explanation of many different observed phenomena. Creationism or ID have none of these characteristics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBiological evolution itself is a fact, with now innumerable observed examples. Darwin's theory of natural selection as the primary mechanism of evolution, while incomplete in his original formulation, has proven to be remarkably robust and even prescient given the relatively unsophisticated state of biological knowledge of 150 years ago. Disagreements among evolutionary scientists of today are essentially quibbles over details of the theory's reach.
I fully agree with Oscar Estevez that suppressing the teaching of ID sends the wrong message to students. They are already well aware of the controversy, and often may attribute a perceived cover-up to embarrassment over deficiencies in evolutionary theory. Instead, long before high school students reach a formal course in biology and evolution, they should have been gradually exposed to the basic concepts of "the scientific method" and its specialized vocabulary of law, theory, hypothesis, etc. By the time they are studying evolution they ought to at least be aware of critiques of scientific methodology, and should be confident enough to recognize the epithet "only a theory" as merely betraying several levels of ignorance.
Shame on GPP for ridiculing Scientific American. You are obviously misinformed and not up to date with Science, specially on Darwinian Evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is important to realize at the outset that evolution is not "just a theory." It is, again, a theory and a fact. Although non-scientists often equate "theory" with "hunch" or "wild guess," the Oxford English Dictionary defines a scientific theory as "a scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts." In science, a theory is a convincing explanation for a diversity of data from nature. Thus scientists speak of "atomic theory" as explanations for the properties of matter and the mutual attraction of physical bodies. It makes as little sense to doubt the factuality of evolution as to doubt the factuality of atomic theory.
"Scientific creationism proved a bust for two reasons. First, the "science" was ludicrously wrong. We have known for a long time that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old (the 6,000- to 10,000-year claim comes from biblical statements, including toting up the number of "begats") and that species were not created suddenly or simultaneously (not only do most species go extinct, but various groups appear at different times in the fossil record), and we have ample evidence for species' changing over time, as well as for fossils that illustrate large morphological transformations. Most risible was Scientific Creationism's struggle to explain the geological record as a result of a great flood: according to its account, "primitive" organisms such as fish would be found in the lowest layers, while mammals and more "advanced" species appeared in higher layers because they climbed hills and mountains to escape the rising waters. Why dolphins are found in the upper strata with other mammals is one of many facts that this ludicrous fantasy fails to explain."
As Richard Dawkins always said, creationists are delude.
The theory of common descent is proved by the convergence of the sciences. But Darwinian theory of natural selection to account for origin of species or as a theory of emergence of life 3.9 Ga remains unsubstantiated after 150 years and moreover is refuted by modern microbiology. Why are kids being forced to learn that natural selection is the cause of the remarkable biodiversity on earth, when this is bad science today? What we need is more and better science, not reliance on 19th century conjecture that even in its day was overly simplistic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf "God" created everything, why did God not create our ability to do Science?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisquantum science has been known for centuries but in the 1600s science became a religon and disregarded the holistic truth that we are made up of energy, Intelligent design is the truth but humanity and their egos need to make themselves into that which they percieve themselves to be...dictators and control freaks, the number ones lol. I am going to be smiling when the higher being decends on those who think they are gods. Imagine from monkeys to gods ...nero-linguistic transfermation tec has been used to blind the masses for generations and supported as a psychology instead of what it really is a weapon. Monkeys to funny, how shallow and ego driven, let alone evolution theory supports beastiality, maybe thats what Darwin and Huxley were into lmao
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi expect god to flash a message anytime soon to clear matters. or may be he does not want to hurt anyone. how nice of him.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf anyone had a quantum of common sense and not take all the bible "literally" this argument would be moot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe 6,000-10,000 year timeline is more or less of recorded man's history.. I think the majority of theologians have conceded man existed long before Noah...
That said, until science can debunk God then it has to remain a possibility that intelligent design might exist.. that we are still being created to some end. I doubt highly that God intended dinosaurs to rule the earth and it may be we aren't intended either?
In any case, I find closed mindedness to this matter from both sides of the argument.. science can be a religion in of itself.. perhaps a little less labeling and more research would be refreshing.
"A day unto God is like a thousand years" is not literal but a mere reference that time is of little consequence to God.. apparently metaphors are now to be taken literally?
I find Sci Am goes out of its way to make assaults on religion constantly.. I'm not very religious but I do believe in a creator and I'm certain the more we discover the more mind boggling it becomes that little of this is by accident but by design..
i expect any moment a flash from heavens giving darwin his due.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find it interesting that the only people who don't recognize evolution:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- Proudly admit that it makes no sense (to them).
- Find deep personal conflict between it and the surviving self-serving myths written in mankinds early ignorance.
- Have a completely different concept of the concept of everything from facts to causality to the existence of a physical reality at all
- Are fundamentalist Christians, who haven't thought much else through very well either.
It's tempting to ask if there's a nice island somewhere where where they could run amok and stand still in time, mid-14th century, and see firsthand how nature, er, god, treats those that do not adapt to their environment. ...but that's why they all wound up here in the first place...
I ask the readers indulgence for a very long post. The summary is there are two problems with creationism. The science is wrong, and the theology is wrong. This post discusses internal problems with creationism
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI propose we take the creationists at their word and teach the controversy. The science is settled, and the only controversy is the aberrant Biblical interpretation used by creationists.
Creationism is a modern Biblical interpretation that states that God created the world in final form in six days of twenty-four hours each. Theological support for this view is very weak.
The creationism debate is not new. Rather, it is the reintroduction of a view discarded by Christians centuries ago. Eighteen hundred years ago, Bishop Oregin taught that the Genesis creation account is obviously not literal because there could be no literal meaning of day before the creation of the sun and the earth. Sixteen hundred years ago Saint Augustine explicitly rejected interpreting day in Genesis to mean a period of 24 hours. Augustine would never have supported a science that was hostile to Biblical revelation, but neither would he have supported an interpretation of a Biblical passage that was opposed to the clear facts in science.
Over eight hundred years ago devout Christians worried there was a fundamental incompatibility between the claims of science and the affirmation of Christian faith. Saint Thomas Aquinas had the insight that the Bible is the book of God's Word and the universe is the book of God's Works. Both of these have the same Author and therefore cannot contradict each other. Aquinas realized that the truths of science and the truths of faith could not contradict one another because the same loving, all-powerful God the God of Truth- who created the physical world also gave man His infallible revelation.
Creationism received a huge boost when Darwin published his theories because evolution was a huge challenge to many Christians. Churches grappled with the implications. The American Baptist Association decided in 1901 to impose religious discipline on the issue. The official creed of the Baptist Association states:
1. We believe in the infallible, verbal inspiration of the whole Bible and that the Bible is the all-sufficient rule of faith and practice (Psalm 119:160; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17).
2. We believe in the personal triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, equal in divine perfection (Matt. 28:19).
3. We believe in the Genesis account of Creation (Gen. 1; 2).
4. We believe that Satan is a fallen angel, the archenemy of God and man, the unholy god of this world, and that his destiny is the eternal lake of fire (Isa. 14:12-15; Ezek. 28:11-19; Matt. 25:41; 2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 6:10-17; Rev. 20:10).
This is the only creed of a Christian Church that imposes a literal interpretation of the Bible on all its members. The Catholic Church uses religious discipline to impose papal infallibility on its flock but the Catholics and Baptists are equally unpersuasive to non members.
The common sense, plain meaning literal sense of Scripture interpretation of the Bible leads to at least 27 different literal interpretations of the Bible. There is pre-millennial tribulationism and post-tribulation millennialism, young-earth creationism and old-earth creationism, round-earth literalism and flat-earth literalism, and even geocentric mid-tribulation millennialism.
The Orthodox, Catholic, European Protestant, and Lutheran derived American Churches find no necessary contradiction between the scientific and Biblical accounts of creation. Their members may freely decide the is or is not any disagreement.
The Bible clearly instructs a Christian not be dogmatic on any issue that is not central to salvation and faith. Romans 14:1-9, I Corinthians 8:6-13. Why, then, does it matter if some brethren believe in creationism? I think Saint Augustines sixteen hundred year old warning about sabotaging evangelism by exposing the Faith to ridicule is still important:
Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics [cosmological issues]; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn."
St. Augustine, the Literal Meaning of Genesis. vol. 1, in Ancient Christian Writers., vol. 41. Translated and annotated by John Hammond Taylor, S.J. New York: Paulist Press, 1982
This is what is happening today. Creationism harms spreading the Gospel because our children, and those not in the fold, are told they must believe nonsense to accept the Truth. That is wrong and unchristian. It can be difficult to accept and treat one another as brethren in the Lord when we read the same inerrant Bible differently. But we must continue to strive because there are so many people who need to hear the Gospel.
I have to admit that I have not had great success with this approach. I hope someone else can use it more fruitfully.
What is nonsense is forcing kids to learn that natural selection and random mutations are the causative mechanisms for the origin of species or the emergence of life. Biological evolution, meaning common descent, is real. The question is how does it occur. For a view to be a scientific theory, as opposed to someone's hunch, it must be testable, verifiable. Take some gray wolves and evolve some chihuahuas, or some grizzlies and evolve some polar bears, or some black bears and evolve the Giant Panda and convince them to give up meat and start crunching on bamboo for eight hours a day. If Darwinists cannot speciate from the common ancestor by changing the environment, then their theory remains unsubstantiated as it is. Something else is going on to explain this planet's remarkable biodiversity. What we need is more and better science, not forcing kids to learn the pseudo-science of natural selection. That, of course, does not mean that Scripture should be taught in science class. Science and faith should be kept separate, as Jefferson preached. Genesis was never intended to be a high school science textbook.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I am not theistic, I have read some of the older texts, and I do applaud Southern Ptarmigan's balanced view of Christian doctrine. S/he may not have had great success with this approach, but the motto that we must not believe nonsense to accept the truth goes far beyond the issue at hand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany have been struck by the irony of the fact that the word "theory" has a non-scientific meaning that is not merely a slight misinterpretation, but is acually understood 'on the street' in a scense that is the exact opposite of its technical meaning. I don't think that the street meaning can ever be eradicated. So why don't we just try to completely purge it from the scientific lexicon? Could we use a different word in scientific communications to express the exact concept as "scientific theory"? How about "principle", or "paradigm" or some other term? What terms do you think might be used as a verbal 're-incarnation' for this very important concept?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the beginning was the Word and the word was BANG, a really really big bang.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor one, why should misuse of language be accomodated simply because of the ignorance of the majority? 'Principle' and 'paradigm' have very specific meanings in themselves, and they have nothing to do with 'theory'. If you want to fix the problem, teach kids the difference between theory and hypothesis. Dumbing down the language will only reinforce the problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMeh, anyone else with a decent lust for reality getting bored with this?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are not fighting a lack of understanding (however Im sure some find evolution a conceptual impossibility), we are fighting a desperate need not to understand. Bible bashers tie evolution in with atheism before any atheist even speaks up. This is because, on some level, they understand the logic and it terrifies them. It terrifies them because the passion in which they believe their bronze aged myths is so regularly refuted by scientific fact. BTW: in mean fact in the sense that something is currently provable and holds up against testing. This doesnt mean our understanding cant grow or change.
Creationists, yours cannot, rather you would ram your truth down peoples throats given the opportunity. And dont say you wouldnt. Erm.. The very fact you turn some of the evolution articles here into 85 article long threads supports that. And no you are no providing a reasonable counter view. To do that you must have evidence.
Science never sought to disprove god and still doesnt. Science is an attempt at understanding the world we are presented with. Im very sorry if that does fit with what the yolks of 2000 years ago thought.
Your (creationists, ID) understanding of the world predicts nothing, helps nothing and is an intellectual dead end. You peddle ignorance as a virtue. Your god is has the same provable veracity as a papa smurf.
I honestly cant say there is no god. I doubt it though. It seems silly to me, an easy copout.
So you should ask yourself is your understanding of the universe is based on a want or what your parents taught you as fact? If it is you should be very very worried.
JohnUmama - Since when did evolutionary theory predict the kinds of speciation that you suggest? To test a theory adequately one must understand its implications. You obviously know next to nothing about the science of evolution, since you merely parrot the idiotic critiques of the Creationists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVulcanologists don't need to create volcanos in order to study them. Astrophysicists don't need to recreate supernovas in order to study them. And biologistss do not need to reproduce major speciation in the lab in order to study it.
You're one of the reasons that the SciAm Forum is such a joke. Like most of the people who post here, you're obviously not a scientist and you don't understand science either.
All Darwinists need to do to provide proof for the theory of natural selection is to produce a single nucleotide from a prebiotic environment, or to evolve a derivative species from a common ancestor (e.g., chihuahua from gray wolves) by changing the environment. Biological evolution is real and is proved by the convergence of the sciences. The real question is, what is the causative mechanism for speciation or for the emergence of life? (Why has NASA found no evidence of life on Mars, for example?) What we need is more and better science, not reliance on 19th century conjecture that remains unsubstantiated to this day. Science requires verifiability, and scientists have to be able to duplicate their results. Consider, for example, the fine work of the Field Museum as to avian evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy, my, my.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just happened to look back to this page after more than a week of no further comments following my own initial post, and suddenly there are new comments galore.
Mr_Karate, I apologize for not having been more clear in my original post, but I think if you go back and read it again, you'll see that I was making much the same point as you.
The letter from Robin A. Cox which Scientific American printed in their May 2009 issue represents a very commonly-made error concerning scientific terminology. I can in a sense agree with Cox that "scientists have, to some extent, contributed to creationists' argument by using the term 'theory' when referring to evolution." Let me repeat, "in a sense," which I'll try to clarify below.
But in going on to suggest that "it is not a theory but an established law" Cox just muddies the water far worse. "Established", yes; a "law", no. This is an all-too-common misuse of the term "law", and the editors of Scientific American know better - or certainly SHOULD know better - than to let a confused, misleading and incorrect assertion be given their implied imprimatur without any corrective editorial comment of their own. Yes, they should be ashamed of themselves, and they should print some sort of clarification at their first opportunity.
As Mr_Karate points out, the word "theory" has a long and honorable history with the definition he quotes from Oxford English Dictionary; my copy of SOED dates this precise usage to 1638, and a slightly simpler definition to 1597. The problem is that the word, in general colloquial usage, has "devolved" from that exacting definition, to include among its various meanings "a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion."
And the compounding problem is that most scientists are frequently very careless in their use of the word, skipping back and forth between its most stringent meaning and its loosest, sometimes even in the same sentence. It's in this sense, only, that I can agree with Cox that scientists are at fault in confusing the general public and contributing to creationists' arguments.
Likewise, the term "law" in its scientific usage is frequently misunderstood and misused, but somewhat differently from the problem with "theory." Here, as in the trap that Cox has fallen into, an assumption is made that if "theory" is a weak statement, then "law" must be a stronger one.
But as I stated in my original comment, in correct scientific usage the term "law" means nothing more than "a description of what happens in a physical system under given circumstances, and makes no attempt at explanation." A law merely states a simple description of a predictable phenomenon; a theory can explain WHY the law appears to hold true. (I say "appears" to hold true; we have David Hume to thank for pointing out the problems with supposedly predictable phenomena. No scientific "law" is ever writ in stone - just ask the physicists who are baffled by gravity.)
I could not agree more with galaxy_man's post #15 (3:41 PM on 05/08/09), and take the liberty of quoting from it here:
"Why should misuse of language be accomodated simply because of the ignorance of the majority? 'Principle' and 'paradigm' have very specific meanings in themselves, and they have nothing to do with 'theory'. ... Dumbing down the language will only reinforce the problem."
Absolutely. Right on.
One of the best discussions on evolution, creationism and "intelligent design" that I've ever encountered is available online, at
http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/pine.html,
and I urge anyone interested to read this excellent article by Ronald H. Pine.
In particular, come down about a quarter of the way through his discussion, to this paragraph, and continue on down from there:
"Misunderstanding on the part of most people as to what the word 'theory' means in science has probably caused more trouble than anything else in getting it across to the public that evolution is as well-supported as any principle in science. In order to straighten out this business, a digression on the scientific meanings of the terms 'hypothesis,' 'law,' and 'theory' follows."
Now, as to Darwinism: are we talking about evolution, or about natural selection?
This may sound self-contradictory, but I personally would take the position that biological evolution from a common ancestor, per se, is both Darwin's *hypothesis* of what he was observing, and a *fact* which has subsequently been both demonstrated in the lab and observed in the wild, innumerable times.
I suppose there might possibly be some "law" of biological evolution, however hard it is for me to conceive of such a thing. But evolution, by itself as a phenomenon, is in no sense a "theory." Evolution occurs; the phenomenon indisputably exists - but the phenomenon carries no explanatory *theory* within itself.
Darwin's general *theory* of evolution - that is, of the mechanism of speciation - is based on the principle of natural selection, and the different means by which such selection may take place, such as sexual selection.
I think we may grant that Darwin was not, and could not have been, correct in every particular; he himself was worried by a number of problems that he was unable to resolve to his own satisfaction. He knew nothing of Mendelian genetics, much less of recent findings of cross-species sharing of genes. When it's proclaimed that "Darwin Was Wrong!", yes, certainly he was, in a number of particulars. There are still many unresolved issues in how speciation comes about, including whether evolution works at the level of the individual organism, or as a population or entire species, or at the level of the "selfish gene", or some combination of these. But nothing has ever invalidated his general theory of natural selection.
Nor can science - the scientific enterprise of studying natural phenomena - ever make a determination of whether or what God may have had to do with it. This is strictly a theological question, entirely outside the purview of scientific enquiry. To those who choose to believe in the divine creation of separate and immutable species, I can only say, believe what you will, and go content in your belief. But speciation is a demonstrated fact.
Sorry, I can see right away that I've again phrased a thought in my post of a few minutes ago in a way that's subject to misinterpretation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my third paragraph from the end, I had meant to emphasize the word "mechanism". That is, "evolution" or speciation is Darwin's *hypothesis* - his postulate, thesis, whatever you want to call it. His *theory* is that of natural selection, as the primary *mechanism* of evolution or speciation.
The question is : Did god invent man or man invent god. The only suggestion of the former comes from unverifiable written folklore dating from a couple of thousand years ago, copied in millions of examples which alone give it any 'weight of authority'. The second possibility is backed up by a vast body of proven research based on multiple perspectives, and which is based on billions of years of evidence. Take your pick!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've always felt that a nice compromise solution to this problem would be that creationism can be taught straight out in a class about comparative religions. Especially if they compare the creation stories of all the major religions. It's silly to try to teach that story in a science class, but it would be ok to teach the story in a religion class.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2 Peter 3:8-9 is often cited to counter the literal 6 days of 24 hours belief to which many creationist leaning Christians adhere. Thanks for your longish comment...it gives voice to an educated middle ground that the polarized parties would do well to consider.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI did not suggest "dumbing down" the language. Most of my students can explain the technical difference between the terms, "hypothesis" and "[scientific] theory". And I do know the dictionary definitions of the terms "principle" and "paradigm". But the reality is that the word "theory" carries an inordinant amount of colloquial 'baggage' along with it, and no amount of wishful thinking is ever going to change that. Another problem, already mentioned by another commentor, is the frequent misuse of the term "theory" by practicing scientists. I don't want to "dumb down" the language-- I want the language to become less confusing and less likely to be misinterpreted by persons who have not pursued an academic career or who do not have a special interest in science. Words have meanings that change over time. I think we should try to stop bickering about the word "theory" and try to find a way to help people understand the meaning of concepts such as Evolution and Natural Selection. As implied by GPP, it doesn't matter what "you want to call it". What matters is that people should understand the meanings of the concepts. The word "theory" does not have to be treated as some sort of 'sacred cow' or dogmatic incantation. If it were a word that is helpful in promoting a broad understanding of scientific concepts, then we should use it. If it doesn't--well then just get over it! Words are merely symbols for concepts. The important thing is the understanding of the concepts. Words that are hepful should be used. Words that are confusing should be purged from the lexicon. And, again, I ask that if anyone has a practical suggestion that can help get us over this silly semantic hang-up please share your thoughts with the rest of us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can understand and sympathize with HighSchoolScienceTeacher's frustration with the confusing different meanings of the word 'theory', but it seems far simpler to explain these meanings and how to distinguish them in context than to coin a new term ex nihilo and have any hope of its gaining general acceptance. I may be wrong, but I believe that in other countries/ cultures/ languages where science tends to be taken more seriously and with less cultural religious conflict, students have little difficulty with the essentially identical terminology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs an aside, I would like to believe that "most of HSST's students can explain the difference between the terms 'hypothesis' and '[scientific] theory,'" but I would be very surprised if that were literally so.
Of course 'theory' is by no means the only word misused in such a way. I want to ask whether HSST's students can as easily spot the nearly as common misuse of the scientific term 'law' in Robin Cox's nonsensical suggestion, which apparently the editors of Scientific American did not. Cox's proposed fix is by no means original; any reader of scientific articles will have encountered exactly the same proposal with the identical misunderstanding of the term 'law' from time to time, but usually not in a publication of Scientific American's standing and reputation.
Another aside: In their issue of 2 May 2009 (p. 23) NewScientist, a British weekly science publication which occasionally indulges their sense of humor by printing various absurdities without comment, Cox's suggestion is quoted verbatim as "a reader letter to Scientific American." Since there is no comment appended I suppose there's the possibility their editors also found this an admirable proposal, but I think it's much more likely a tongue-in-cheek tweaking of a rival publication's nose.
In truth the whole problem goes much deeper than a simple confusion of scientific terminology. I have never taught high school science, but science education in the United States leaves a great deal to be desired. I firmly believe that high school students can grasp difficult concepts (and different meanings of words like 'theory' or 'law' should surely not be that difficult) if they are clearly and thoroughly explored. And as I suggested in my initial post here, in reference to the Estevez letter, students ought to be exposed throughout their schooling, beginning at much earlier ages, not only to 'science' but to scientific *thinking* as well.
Given that this does not usually happen, if I were teaching a high school science course, especially a biology course that will cover evolution, I would take the entire first class period to review scientific concepts. I have no syllabus, and these topics are more or less randomly listed here, but I think they are all important to cover:
--that science is not a collection of facts, but a methodology;
--discussion of different modes of understanding, including introspection, authority, and observation and testing;
--explanation of authority, whether a religiously inspired belief system, or the authority of school teachers and textbooks, and its fallibility;
--examples of fallibility: rejection of Wegener's theory of plate tectonics; Einstein's reworking of Newton; Copernicus vs Ptolemy; etc;
--falsity of the 'gaps' argument, because science IS the exploration of the inevitable gaps in our knowledge, and there are always new gaps;
--the amorphous nature of nature, upon which we impose our own schemes of categorization that are not inherent in reality;
--our tendency to dichotomize rather than seeing continua or 2+ dimensions of fields of possibility;
--some brief philosophical discussion of 'reality': Berkeley, Hume, John Wheeler, etc;
--the irrelevance of our beliefs or belief systems to the actuality of nature, but also our tendency to be stuck in a paradigm: Kuhn, etc;
--the crucial role of differing interpretations of data - i.e. controversy within a discipline - to help prevent premature and wrong-headed consensus; and how such productive controversy can give no legitimate comfort to deniers of well-established principles, who rely solely on nonscientific authority;
--the 'scientific method' and how it is actually an oversimplification of the ways scientists actually work and have creative ideas;
--the specific terminology of science and its misunderstandings as related to colloquial meanings;
--the importance of falsifiability to weed out an unsubstantiated assertion: Popper, etc;
--the importance of posing a question in a meaningful way - not "what good is half an eye or half a wing?" but rather how might a rudimentary eye or wing be of advantage? (Also, feathers for warmth before use for flight);
--returning to our imposition of categories upon amorphous nature, the suggestion that our concept of 'species' is heuristic and definitional rather than clear-cut fact with sharp distinctions; the ongoing process of speciation and factors that work against it; discussion of what we call 'subspecies';
--the great irony of evolution being so well documented and understood while under constant attack in this country, when at the same time any student will claim to have a clear understanding of so uncontroversial a subject as gravity - which no one really understands; etc.
I'm sure I could easily double the length of this list but as it is, this is already too much to try to cover even minimally in a single class period. I think these are all important concepts to be developed throughout a biology class, and many should also be covered in any other high school level science course.
Further into a biology course there ought to be some exploration of some of Gould's and Dawkins' ideas, and other more recent findings and arguments, such as the accidents of historicity, spandrels, tree vs bush vs web, the 'blind watchmaker', misconception of 'progress' and the nondirectionality of evolution, loss of unneeded features e.g. in parasites or cave fish, unit of evolution e.g. gene/ organism/ population/ species, the problem of altruism, cross-species gene transfer, epigenetic heritability, whether we now live in the 'age of man' or still and evermore the age of bacteria, etc etc.
Students not only can understand this stuff, if presented appropriately they emerge with a far better and clearer understanding of evolution, biology and science in general than if they are spoon-fed textbook 'facts' that do not address the questions and controversies they are already well aware of.
Scientific illiteracy is a widespread, deep, and terrible problem in this country. And it's certainly not helped by publications like Scientific American printing well-meaning but silly letters that serve only to compound the general confusion.
AP 5/18/09: Middle and high school students across the country are generally falling behind in life sciences, and the nation is at risk of producing a dearth of qualified workers for the fast-growing bioscience industry ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStudents are showing less interest in taking life sciences and science courses, and high schools are doing a poor job of preparing students for college-level science ...
The deficiencies will hurt the country's competitiveness with the rest of the world in the knowledge-based economy ... "Economic growth in the future, more than ever, will depend on a talented, educated, tech-savvy work force" ...
Average scores on the NAEP for 12th graders in the sciences and life sciences declined from 1996 to 2005. ... Only 28 percent of high school students taking the ACT reached a score indicating college readiness for biology.
... also found a deficiency in the number of well-qualified biology teachers available in high school, with one-in-eight biology teachers not certified to teach biology.
To improve U.S. competitiveness in the biosciences industry, the report recommends that states incorporate biotechnology into their science standards, make sure students are ready to take college biosciences courses and focus more on professional development for teachers. ...
It would be nice to think that with effective presentations that address students' concerns instead of ignoring them, and that explain what science is about and how it works (and how its vocabulary is properly used), high school students could actually get involved and perhaps even enthusiastic. These kids are not dumb. Learning a bunch of facts is hard; having a logical structure to hang them onto makes it easy.
And here we are still arguing over bible stories. Can we please at some point join up with the rest of the 21st C? All a teacher needs to say is, you may believe whatever you want to. We're studying science here, not beliefs. These are different things.
John, you ask; "Why has NASA found no evidence of life on Mars, for example?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not sure how that question is relevant to the discussion on this page, but I do have an answer to your question. Either:
1) Mars is sterile and without life, or...
2) We haven't look hard enough yet.
I have a $50 wager with a colleague that we will find evidence of life on Mars before 2050. However, I didn't bet $100.
We have literally only scratched the surface on Mars. While we have not seen critters running across the camera views of our probes, we do see a teasingly large amount of methane in the atmosphere. (Methane is highly reactive, and breaks down rapidly in ultraviolet - what process is replenishing the methane in the atmosphere? Is it a geological process, or biological? We don't know yet...)
Now, how is your question about life on Mars relevant to the discussion on this page?
~Michael / JPL
While "the origin of the species by natural selection" is, and always will be a theory, evolution itself is a proven fact, so there is a Law of Evolution that describes the process. We are just in the early stages of learning that Law.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA theory in science means a well tested way to describe a related group of facts. Evolution and gravity are theories.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Scientists have, to some extent, contributed to creationists arguments by using the term theory when referring to evolution. It is not a theory but an established law.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRobin A. Cox
Scarborough, Ontario"
By whose authority is it Law, only by the Evolutionist, there is no bases for it to be a Law, it is not even a good theory! It is based on assumptions. One fragment of a bone is not a total creation. And to teach it in schools is to teach falsehood.
Every thing on this world would have been dead already if it depended on evolution, as the intermediates between one levels to the other would bring forth death.
Give us your evolutionary explanation of death. Give us the evolutionary explanation of life. Give us the explanation the plan start to end of evolution. As a creationist I can give you it all.
Evolution is a lie; creation is a Law, full of declared proven Laws and discarded theories of which evolution is one. What if I say to you the Devil, Satan used engineering to deform Gods creation, will you tell me the Devil, Satan does not exist? If it were not Satan who did it, it would be Evolutionist to proof their point. I can proof it does, it is the Antichrist, and that is what Evolutionists are the Antichrist. It is God and Anti-God. Creationists and Evolutionists, why. Creationist is Law abiding, evolutionist is Law rejecting. Creationist is disciplined, evolutionist hate discipline that is why they hate God and his people.
Evolutionists have been exposed for what they are, and if you are happy with what I say, you have the same right in School curriculums as any other sciences and religion. You ban the one you ban the lot.
It is very simple, call a spade a spade, a Creationist is a God abiding, Law Loving person an Evolutionist is the opposite. Laws of any kind inhibit them (Evolutionist) of their prime objective disorder, lawlessness, hate and deception.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo stop the name calling, it is Believers and non-believers, it is God or anti-God, Christ or ant-Christ. Once we admit to that, we can move forward, because now we know who we are, both Believers (Creationist) and Anti-Christ (Evolutionists). The first falsehood will then be removed, and we can go forward in search of the truth.
Love and order (Creationist) vs. hate and disorder (Evolutionists).
Even Atheists who rejects both Creationist and Evolutionists will tell you and have done so; the one stands for Order (Creationist) the other for Disorder (Evolutionists).
Evolutionists believes disorder has created Order and Laws as we have it today, their own law is proving them wrong, as the world and it existence is going into loss, it can’t sustain itself, it is going in destruction, evolution is to slow.
Now this argument above is not scientific, it relates to the lie (evolution) that is spread, while inhibiting the truth (religion) in schools and universities the world around. Its called evolution under the cover of Science, and as Religion can’t go under a lie, it goes as religion but can’t be taught in schools.
Even evolution has its religious believers, the ones who does not believe in God the Creator, and they belong with the (Evolutionists), make the playing field even, it is a God protected right for every person to make up his/her own mind, or does the evolutionist not believe in that right.
Not so! It is a theory. This is why it is called The Theory of Evolution. In fact Every scientific theory is called a theory because science has no dogma. Science will change a theory as soon as a scientist has proof that there is some change to be made to the theory. There is nothing negative about theory. For instance gravity is a theory yet no one in his right mind may think that falling will suddenly non-longer be down but up. The sound theory imply a certain speed that is known. No expect that tomorrow during a storm the sky will light up and the sound will reach our ears a week later. Scientific theories are as certain as anything can be but since science is a honest human behavior it leaves the door open to change unlike religions depending on unchanging dogma invented millennia's ago by pre-scientific knowledge of any kind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Creationist, as is the norm with creationists you do not have a clue what you are talking about, either from a scientific or theological perspective. It is clear that you haven't made a single attempt at understanding the theory of evolution or the scientific method or even logic as is demonstrated by this idiotic comment, "Give us your evolutionary explanation of death. Give us the evolutionary explanation of life." Life and death are the engines of evolution. You also don't understand your own religion, "that is what Evolutionists are the Antichrist" or did you skip over the bit that says, "Do not judge so that you will not be judged" Matthew 7:1. You seem to be either mentally ill, in which case I am sorry - please get help, or very deluded. Please understand that your comments here do not help us see your point. They only demonstrate your personal intellectual impairments. If you want to do you and your cause some favours, please save the sermons for the god box, and get yourself educated (and medicated!).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou want to know what evil is? Evil is those that package ignorance as god's will.
There is no intelligent design. The proof? If their was an intelligent design would it put the prostate where it is? Anywhere else would be better even behind the ear. Darwin got it right fearing a religious back lash as usual to truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way regarding "Just a theory." The Theory of gravity if it is according to "The believers" also just a theory do they expect that from time to time to fall up instead of down? Why are we going backward to the dark ages in the 21st century?
How ignorant can you be? Life and death are very well described scientifically. The two concepts (really just one now that I think about it) are central to natural selection. Differential reproductive success.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt saddens me that there are so many people in the world that hold so desperately to their mythologies. Not long ago this same caliber of people used their "BuyBull" to "prove" that the Earth was flat. Most religious fanatics have at least given that one up... they quite simply couldn't withstand the scientific evidence to the contrary.
The scientific evidence supporting evolution by means of natural selection is also overwhelming. Ignorance will be erradicated soon. Education is the key. People, please be rational. Belief in dieties and an afterlife cause more harm than good to our world. Enjoy this life and live well... it's all you've got.
The Lord My God does not want STUPID people in heaven because they are not stable. Hey Creationists, learn to grab your ass and know that today is today!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWHILE THE CREATIONISTS AND THE EVOLUTIONIST ARE PISSING ALL OVER EACH OTHER, WHY DOESN'T ANYONE ASK IF GOD WANTS FANATICS IN THE AFTERLIFE? IF YOU THINK THAT YOU CAN SPEW CREATIONISM OR EVOLUTIONARY PHILOSOPHIES BEFORE THE LORD GOD, LEARN TO LOOK BEYOND YOURSELF! GOD IS!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat would happen if we were to approach discussion of the question of creationism vs. evolution in the public schools as two potentially equivalent proposals, both purporting to explain the same natural biological phenomena, and both to be subjected to the
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissame rigorous scientific testing, evaluation, and standards of evidence? If that were to happen (and the science was done correctly), it would be an instructive example of what science is and how it works, and a sad day for the creationists as their theory would be disproved and that of evolution advanced, repeating the same process that has occurred in the real world of science outside of the classroom. However, that is far from what the creationists really are after; they want "air time", which basically works the same way as advertising does: get the product out there and it will sell - regardless of its merits and without the requirement that it be subjected to real testing; and they want a "foot in the door" to the public education system, and they want preaching of their religion in the public schools.
Creationism is a very slick attempt to push a particular religious set of beliefs by presenting it in the guise of science. We have banned, for good reason the teaching of religion in schools (actually not teaching about religions in general, but the presentation of religious dogma as truth - preaching in school, in other words), and the fundamentalists are unhappy about this. What they would really like is for each school day to begin and end in a prayer to their particular fundamentalist concept of god and for the science class to resemble one of their "Bible study" classes in Sunday school. While we are at it, why not teach, along with creationism, a host of other discredited theories? (actually there is value in teaching this way, and most science courses teach about the major theories that were proven wrong as well as the ideas and explanations that ultimately replaced them - students thereby get to understand the process of science). On the other hand one has to draw the line somewhere - classroom time is not unlimited, and there is an infinite number of factually incorrect as well as purely ignorant ideas in the world, past, present, and no doubt, future). If all the time were used discussing the merits or lack thereof of these there would be little time left over for teaching the real ideas and facts. Also, if we are going to present the creation story of one culture, religion or group of religions, what about those of other cultures? As entertaining as it might be to hear a Creationist Christian explain why the creation story in the Book of Genesis as translated and presented in the King James version, and interpreted by the Creationists, is more scientifically and factually valid and better supported by evidence than the creation stories
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisof the cultures and religions of say, Mesoamerica, Australian Aborigine, ancient Egypt,China or India, no doubt leading to the conclusion that all of
these stories are in fact just that, discussions of these really belong in an anthropology or comparative religion class and not in a Biology class.