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
9 comments:
Hi Andrew,
No, it is just scientists pointing out religion, pseudoscientific babble and ridiculous claims and then the education authorities deciding to put creationism on the same pile as Astrology or the Stork theory of human reproduction.
You making serious accusations of conspiracies against you which involve vast numbers of scientists, educators, legislators and newspaper editors is rather sad. This puts you at least on a par with the 9/11 truth brigade I think for your lack of connection with reality.
How old do you think the earth is? When do you think the dinosaurs died out?
Regards,
Psi
psiloirodinary - think about it - naturalism, by denying the opportunity for school kids to consider 'srengths and weaknesses' of Darwinism are treating education as social indoctrination and not training them to think through complex problems. This is dumbing down of science.
As for conspiracy, I don't recall mentioning the word, but you might like to consider a book by Karl Popper entitled the Open Society and its Enemies in which Popper observes that neo-Platonism has influeneced modern society, but is really tyrannical.
Wow the education establishment are now are naturalists are they? That will be a surprise to them.
Critical thinking is very useful indeed. It is as a result of this kind of thinking that your religious ideas are excluded from the science curriculum.
Why are you shy about answering my questions?
I wonder?
Regards,
Psi
psiord. I have always been totally open about my views on the age of the earth and dinosaurs. You can read about them at www.csm.org.uk.
Science cannot know the age of the earth without making untestable assumptions.
There is ample evidence for a global flood in the recent past for those with open minds. i.e. Genesis, the Gilgamesh Epic, the Sumerian King List etc, and what we know about nation building and population growth from the Middle
East etc.
So I presume that this is 6.000 years and sometime after they got off the Ark then?
Yes we can.
No there isn't.
Science makes a huge effort to ensure things are looked at with open minds, that facts can be checked and that silly ideas are rejected.
You on the other hand seem to need everything to fit in with your particular interpretation of your particular translation of your particular old book.
Perhaps you would like Velikovsky taught in science class as well?
- - -
You don't just deny evolution but your insistence on such a ludicrously wrong age of the earth must mean you deny most of physics and chemistry also.
I think that you are free to think what you like, I draw the line when this kind of things tries to muscle it's way into science classrooms and pollute the minds of kids.
How would you feel if science started making demands to be heard in RE classes?
Regards,
Psi
psi - I fear you are caught in the metaphysical black hole known as scientism with its delusion of certain knowledge, but no such certainty in science can exist.
I hope and pray that you escape from your dogma so that you might see the beauty of design and sense of mystery that is the reality of our existence.
Quieten your fears Andrew.
Science does not claim absolutes. as you do, but it does discriminate against ideas which are wrong.
There are enough independent lines of evidence for us to be happy for now that we know how old the world is and that we evolved. Science is also open to new evidence in the future as well. In fact science spends most of it's time trying to find new evidence and a nobel prize awaits someone who can overturn current thinking using rationality and evidence.
Unfortunately for you, you neither work with rationality nor evidence but simply must believe yur holy book.
All this talk of assumptions and preconceptions is breathtakingly hypocritical when you are the one who has started with your answer and then ignore or twist evidence to suit this pre conceived conclusion.
Regards,
Psi
PS
BTW where did Noah get the penguins from for the Ark? I have often wondered.
The Bible is a collection of literature that makes predictions - including the coming of the Messiah and his future return. If science is about making predictions then the Bible can be read and trusted scientifically.
Many secularists dismiss the Bible without even reading it or understanding it. If a creationists fails to understand Darwinian claims, then you would rightly claim a foul - but why don't secularists even try and understand Judeo-Christian theology before dismissing it?
This would appear to be the courtiers response Andrew. (But the emperor is still naked)
I would also point out that your post was about education policy. Now you have switched your attack to "secularists". Do you now accept that many of those you criticised in your post are actually people of faith?
Heard of Ken Miller?
Try this.
So whilst some secularists may well dismiss your holy book along with many others without first trying them out so to speak then there are very many who would resent your statement.
Have you read the various other religious books from around the planet?
Didn't you know that most of them make exactly the same claims to predictions that you just have?
Don't tell me you dismiss their claims without really understanding them? That would be a hypocritical position now wouldn't it?
Regards,
Psi
PS I am not a person of faith, the main reason being the "problem of evil", but probably my second reason is the contents of the Bible and what the various interpretations of it lead people to do.
PPS
If the bible is scientifically infallible then why doesn't the birds blood cure for leprosy work?
Post a Comment