A New York Times Editorial [1] falls back on empty rhetoric and provides a rather confused argument in seeking to defend Darwinism in the US education system. Stating in the headline for instance that ‘creationism’ is a ‘con,’ and commenting that ‘creationists tend to struggle with reality’ in the first sentence, but then they fail to present a positive case for Darwinism. This rather aggressive approach to defending evolutionary science is a staple of Darwinist propaganda; firstly taken up by Thomas Huxley who was described as ‘Darwin’s bulldog;’ then by people like Andrew Dixon White who helped develop a sense of conflict between science and faith, and later by Richard Dawkins, otherwise known as ‘Darwin’s Rottweiler,’ who often uses polemical argumentation to reinforce his point in favour of atheism.
The object of the NYT attack would seem to be the Texas State Board of Education that is seeking to maintain teaching standards in the school education system. The contested approach is one that insists that evidence must be presented to schoolchildren in terms of ‘strengths and weaknesses’ in scientific theories such as Darwinism. In arguing against this the NYT falls back on the tired old dogma that ‘science must be naturalistic’ and ‘Darwinism is proved’ by naturalistic science, which is kind of a circular argument. If naturalism is assumed true at the start of scientific investigation, a naturalistic explanation will be the result, whether naturalism is true or not. They also come out with the following ill-thought out statement that defies logic, suggesting that ‘the elegant truth of evolution...has…evolved.’
‘Every student who hopes to understand the scientific reality of life will sooner or later need to accept the elegant truth of evolution as it has itself evolved since it was first postulated by Darwin.’
What happens if we apply this same logic to mathematics? Suppose a school child puts on her exam paper that although she knows her answer does not follow the rule of arithmetic the ‘elegant truth of mathematics has evolved’ and therefore she should be awarded full marks. And the Darwinists want us to believe that they are the guardians of standards in education.
Are we to believe now that truth is a relative concept that can evolve? Of course science changes over time, but that isn’t about ‘truth evolving’ it is an admission that scientific explanations were wrong in the past or only partially correct and a new and better way of understanding science has developed. Science progresses in this way because scientists study the ‘strengths and weaknesses’ of theories through a process of falsification.
In fact thinking through ‘strengths and weaknesses’ is an excellent strategy for science because it puts false science between a rock and a hard place, thus allowing truth to be seen. Dishonest science that goes through this process will be either exposed as false, or if it resists the need for scrutiny will be exposed as not science, but metaphysical dogma. That doesn’t mean that science cannot have religious or philosophical commitments, but that they must be honestly addressed. In fact it is impossible to do science without such commitments. Creationists are honest in noting that they cannot prove that design is the best explanation scientifically because of the foundational limits of science, but that design is the most logical explanation when the extreme complexity of life is fully considered. Christian faith, and belief in the creator ultimately come via revelation from God. But naturalists should at least be honest and also acknowledge that naturalism cannot be known to be true scientifically. The NYT Editorial comments that ‘All science is “naturalist” to the extent that it tries to understand the laws of nature and the character of the universe on their own terms, without reference to a divine creator.’ But science cannot fully know whether a divine creator exists or not. Such naturalistic science is exposed to the problem of searching for a solution that may not exist leaving many excellent scientists ‘barking up the wrong tree.’
The NYT article seeks to defend itself by commenting that ‘Scientists are always probing the strengths and weakness of their hypotheses. That is the very nature of the enterprise. But evolution is no longer a hypothesis. It is a theory rigorously supported by abundant evidence.’ But the NYT fails to give an example of this ‘abundant evidence’ preferring empty rhetoric instead. And the history of science shows that once well-established theories often come unstuck at a later date.
Education
The secular humanists and Darwinists want people to believe that they are the guardians of science standards in education, but they want to restrict education to learning given ‘facts’ and not allow students to think through issues for themselves, such as understanding the 'strengths and weaknesses' of Darwinism. This in effect leads to the ‘dumbing down’ of education that was incidentally a part of the pagan social order proposed in Plato’s Republic. On the other hand Christians believe that all students should be educated to the level of thinking human beings so they may find their potential in Christ, thus enabling them to consider the deeper meaning and purposes of life and not be reduced to the level of productive economic units serving the purpose of a neo-pagan or secular elite. Education is not simply about producing materialistic, economic human units, but about giving human beings the skills and ability to find their full God given humanity.
Sources
[1] Editorial, ‘The Cons of Creationism,’ New York Times, 7th June 2008http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/opinion/07sat3.html?ref=opinion
The object of the NYT attack would seem to be the Texas State Board of Education that is seeking to maintain teaching standards in the school education system. The contested approach is one that insists that evidence must be presented to schoolchildren in terms of ‘strengths and weaknesses’ in scientific theories such as Darwinism. In arguing against this the NYT falls back on the tired old dogma that ‘science must be naturalistic’ and ‘Darwinism is proved’ by naturalistic science, which is kind of a circular argument. If naturalism is assumed true at the start of scientific investigation, a naturalistic explanation will be the result, whether naturalism is true or not. They also come out with the following ill-thought out statement that defies logic, suggesting that ‘the elegant truth of evolution...has…evolved.’
‘Every student who hopes to understand the scientific reality of life will sooner or later need to accept the elegant truth of evolution as it has itself evolved since it was first postulated by Darwin.’
What happens if we apply this same logic to mathematics? Suppose a school child puts on her exam paper that although she knows her answer does not follow the rule of arithmetic the ‘elegant truth of mathematics has evolved’ and therefore she should be awarded full marks. And the Darwinists want us to believe that they are the guardians of standards in education.
Are we to believe now that truth is a relative concept that can evolve? Of course science changes over time, but that isn’t about ‘truth evolving’ it is an admission that scientific explanations were wrong in the past or only partially correct and a new and better way of understanding science has developed. Science progresses in this way because scientists study the ‘strengths and weaknesses’ of theories through a process of falsification.
In fact thinking through ‘strengths and weaknesses’ is an excellent strategy for science because it puts false science between a rock and a hard place, thus allowing truth to be seen. Dishonest science that goes through this process will be either exposed as false, or if it resists the need for scrutiny will be exposed as not science, but metaphysical dogma. That doesn’t mean that science cannot have religious or philosophical commitments, but that they must be honestly addressed. In fact it is impossible to do science without such commitments. Creationists are honest in noting that they cannot prove that design is the best explanation scientifically because of the foundational limits of science, but that design is the most logical explanation when the extreme complexity of life is fully considered. Christian faith, and belief in the creator ultimately come via revelation from God. But naturalists should at least be honest and also acknowledge that naturalism cannot be known to be true scientifically. The NYT Editorial comments that ‘All science is “naturalist” to the extent that it tries to understand the laws of nature and the character of the universe on their own terms, without reference to a divine creator.’ But science cannot fully know whether a divine creator exists or not. Such naturalistic science is exposed to the problem of searching for a solution that may not exist leaving many excellent scientists ‘barking up the wrong tree.’
The NYT article seeks to defend itself by commenting that ‘Scientists are always probing the strengths and weakness of their hypotheses. That is the very nature of the enterprise. But evolution is no longer a hypothesis. It is a theory rigorously supported by abundant evidence.’ But the NYT fails to give an example of this ‘abundant evidence’ preferring empty rhetoric instead. And the history of science shows that once well-established theories often come unstuck at a later date.
Education
The secular humanists and Darwinists want people to believe that they are the guardians of science standards in education, but they want to restrict education to learning given ‘facts’ and not allow students to think through issues for themselves, such as understanding the 'strengths and weaknesses' of Darwinism. This in effect leads to the ‘dumbing down’ of education that was incidentally a part of the pagan social order proposed in Plato’s Republic. On the other hand Christians believe that all students should be educated to the level of thinking human beings so they may find their potential in Christ, thus enabling them to consider the deeper meaning and purposes of life and not be reduced to the level of productive economic units serving the purpose of a neo-pagan or secular elite. Education is not simply about producing materialistic, economic human units, but about giving human beings the skills and ability to find their full God given humanity.
Sources
[1] Editorial, ‘The Cons of Creationism,’ New York Times, 7th June 2008http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/opinion/07sat3.html?ref=opinion
