I'd like to start with four paragraphs from an article. Then I'll add a
few thoughts based upon recent discussions in this group.
------------
Macroevolution, as a scientific theory about the origin of the
species, must certainly be taught in public schools. It is widely
accepted by the scientific community and it functions extremely well
as a paradigm for tying together data from paleontology,
developmental biology, ecology, and genetics, helping generate new
ideas to guide future research. But science teachers should be
careful to explain which parts of the theory are well-established
and which are merely speculative. It is important for students to
learn where scientific theories are strong, and where they are
weaker. Microevolution, the fossil record, and the genetic
similarities between species provide well-established arguments for
macroevolution. Other elements of macroevolution (the development
of the first life, the development of complex organs, and universal
common ancestry) are weaker; in these areas we have many hypotheses
and comparatively less empirical data. If sound scientific
objections are raised to certain elements of macroevolution, then
they also belong in the science curriculum. It is simply a matter
of scientific honesty to admit this....
The metaphysical extrapolation from macroevolution to evolutionism
has no place in the science curriculum. Science teachers and school
boards should be able to assure parents that they are _not_
teaching, in the name of science, that the Bible has been
"disproved;" that there is no Creator; that there is no human
dignity, no purpose for life, and no moral standards. If these
ideas are discussed in school at all, they properly belong in a
philosophy or comparative religions class, where all views may be
considered equally.
Scientists can never rule out the possibility that miracles occurred
in the past. The most that scientists can say is that it _appears_
as though the same natural mechanisms at work today, operating over
millions or billions of years, can adequately explain the scientific
data. In the case of macroevolution, scientific intuition and
philosophical expectations must still fill in some large empirical
gaps. If science teachers adequately differentiate the
well-established areas from the speculative, then it may be possible
--- even in today's atmosphere of strong church/state separation ---
to carefully mention the fact that some people, including some
scientists, are progressive creationists who believe that a Creator
might have intervened in these areas.
Young earth creationists form a very small minority of professional
scientists, but their views represent a sizeable fraction of the
population. Their scientific models of astronomy, geology, and
biology do not seem to warrant "equal billing" with evolutionary
models. Yet they are willing to present those models separated from
religious content, and to have them evaluated purely on scientific
merit. Perhaps some school districts, where there is sufficient
interest, can offer a short, optional unit which makes available to
students the literature of both YECs and their critics. Surely it
is not a waste of time to let students learn how to evaluate
competing scientific models. (L. Haarsma, "Why Believe in a
Creator? Perspectives on Evolution" _World_&_I_, January, 1996.)
--------------------
Here is what I would add regarding intelligent design theory:
1. Arguments based upon biological complexity are scientific. The usual
arguments --- that known evolutionary mechanisms are inadequate to
generate irreducible complexity and biological novelty --- are speculative
and non-empirical, but they ARE scientific and should be included (along
with their speculative and non-empirical counter-arguments) in the science
curriculum. I would include them under the category of "weak areas of
macroevolution." (The same could be said for arguments for and against
the idea that known evolutionary mechanisms are adequate to account for
the speed of speciation and rarity of transitional forms in the fossil
record.)
2. Arguments based upon analogy between biological organisms and man-made
(designed) objects are PHILOSOPHICAL, and should not be included in the
science curriculum. (It is possible for science classes to occasionally
tackle philosophical arguments, but they need to be clearly labeled as
such and several competing points of view should be included.) In the
same way, arguments for un-directed evolution based upon examples of "bad
design" (e.g. the blind spot) are also philosophical, and should not be
included in the science curriculum.
3. Finally, arguments about the presumed philosophical bias of scientists
are themselves philosophical. They should not be part of the science
curriculum. (Though they could be part of a "philosophical" unit with
several viewpoints included.)
What about _Pandas_ and _Darwin_on_Trial_? My opinion is that _DOT_
spends too much time on the third point, and its arguments on the first
point are far too hand-wavy. I wouldn't recommend teaching out of it,
though there is certainly nothing wrong with including it on an optional
reading list. I haven't read _Pandas_ yet. If _Pandas_ spends a lot of
time on the "design-by-analogy" argument, that is a strike against it (if
it wants to be part of the science curriculum). If _Pandas_ spends most
of its time arguing that known mechanisms are inadequate AND if it tries
to make those arguments as detailed and empirical as possible (a lot
depends upon the quality of those arguments!), then I would defend a
teacher's option to use it. I guess I'll have to read _Pandas_ to find
out.
(Incidentally, I expect point 2 to generate the most dissent, but I'm
prepared to defend it. :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There's nothing more exciting than science. You get |
all the fun of sitting still, being quiet, writing | Loren Haarsma
down numbers, paying attention. Science has it all!" | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu
--Principal Skinner (_The_Simpsons_) |