Tuesday, February 13, 2007
They Still Don't Get It
CBS News reports that evolution is again up for debate in Kansas. A new "evolution friendly" school board is considering a revision to the state's science standards, and the board is expected to "dump" the anti-evolution (anti-intellectual!) standards that were adopted in 2005. That's good news for science and intellectual integrity!
Of course, there are dissenters. Ken Willard, a Republican who supported the anti-evolution/anti-intellectual standards adopted by the previous board, had this to say:
"There's this, I think, political agenda to just ensure that evolution is the driving, underlying notion that has to be accepted in Kansas science standards in order for Kansas to keep its head up in the world, which is just bizarre."
What's bizarre is that he just doesn't get it. It's important, perhaps, that Kansas isn't the laughingstock of the intellectual world, but it's even more important that the integrity of scientific and intellectual processes are maintained. Silly religious beliefs led silly politicians to enshrine anti-evolution beliefs in the science standards. What does that teach kids about science, reason, and intellectual activity? That popularity counts more than veracity?
Of course, there are dissenters. Ken Willard, a Republican who supported the anti-evolution/anti-intellectual standards adopted by the previous board, had this to say:
"There's this, I think, political agenda to just ensure that evolution is the driving, underlying notion that has to be accepted in Kansas science standards in order for Kansas to keep its head up in the world, which is just bizarre."
What's bizarre is that he just doesn't get it. It's important, perhaps, that Kansas isn't the laughingstock of the intellectual world, but it's even more important that the integrity of scientific and intellectual processes are maintained. Silly religious beliefs led silly politicians to enshrine anti-evolution beliefs in the science standards. What does that teach kids about science, reason, and intellectual activity? That popularity counts more than veracity?
Teach the Real Controversy
One of the tactics of the creationism/intelligent design movement is to advocate that schools "teach the controversy" surrounding evolution. The Discovery Institute, under the guise of intellectual/academic freedom, is a big advocate of this purely political tactic. Of course, there is no controversy within biology about evolution; the only controversy has been created by those who cling to myth instead of science.
There are many, many good books about evolution and myth (in this particular American context, creationism and intelligent design). The book by Eugenie C. Scott and Niles Eldredge, Evolution Vs. Creationism is good (and now in paperback). Scott is the Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education. Elredge is an American Museum of Natural History paleontologist who co-developed, with Stephen Jay Gould, the idea of punctuated equilibrium.
A personal favorite of mine is philosopher Daniel C. Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Although Dennett only indirectly talks about creationism and intelligent design (he thinks that only the unintelligent or uniformed can believe in them), his exposition of Darwin's idea is superb.
Joseph Campbell has admirably explored the function - perhaps even the necessity - of myths for our psyches. But whether or not we need myths, we don't need to insert myth into science, especially when the real goal isn't to modify or "expand" science per se, but to restrict intellectual freedom.
That's exactly what the Discovery Institute is all about. Instead of true intellectual freedom, the "teach the controversy" ploy is really designed to limit intellectual activity to that approved by a narrow vision of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The Discovery Institute's infamous wedge strategy (which exhibits a rare degree of candor and truthfulness on the part of the Institute) leaves no doubt about the real intent. The Institute is simply a milder version of the truly dangerous (although small in number) Christian Reconstructionists, who want to stone blasphemers (anyone who disagrees with them, but especially atheists or agnostics).
But there is a real controversy about which the Discovery Institute is silent. I call it the "controversy of the myths." The Institute promotes the Judeo-Christian version of creation found in Genesis (not openly, since it claims intelligent design isn't religious, but that's just a bit of intellectual dishonesty on its part), but there are dozens of other creation myths. Does the Discovery Institute advocate teaching the Egyptian myth of Osiris, who is frequently depicted as a trinity? What about the Persian myth of Mithra, who was born of a god father and a (human) virgin mother? Mithra was born in a stable, recruited 12 disciples, and even had a last supper. What about the Japanese Shinto creation story, which teaches that heaven and earth were formed from an egg-shaped chaotic mass full of germs? Or the Apache story, in which a small bearded man created light, then woman (not man!)?
Lot's of controversy here. Which story is right? How do we know? They are all based on ancient traditions and (some of them) ancient texts. Let's teach the controversy in the churches!
Until then, I'll follow the advice I once saw on a bumper sticker: You don't pray in my schools and I won't think in your churches.
There are many, many good books about evolution and myth (in this particular American context, creationism and intelligent design). The book by Eugenie C. Scott and Niles Eldredge, Evolution Vs. Creationism is good (and now in paperback). Scott is the Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education. Elredge is an American Museum of Natural History paleontologist who co-developed, with Stephen Jay Gould, the idea of punctuated equilibrium.
A personal favorite of mine is philosopher Daniel C. Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Although Dennett only indirectly talks about creationism and intelligent design (he thinks that only the unintelligent or uniformed can believe in them), his exposition of Darwin's idea is superb.
Joseph Campbell has admirably explored the function - perhaps even the necessity - of myths for our psyches. But whether or not we need myths, we don't need to insert myth into science, especially when the real goal isn't to modify or "expand" science per se, but to restrict intellectual freedom.
That's exactly what the Discovery Institute is all about. Instead of true intellectual freedom, the "teach the controversy" ploy is really designed to limit intellectual activity to that approved by a narrow vision of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The Discovery Institute's infamous wedge strategy (which exhibits a rare degree of candor and truthfulness on the part of the Institute) leaves no doubt about the real intent. The Institute is simply a milder version of the truly dangerous (although small in number) Christian Reconstructionists, who want to stone blasphemers (anyone who disagrees with them, but especially atheists or agnostics).
But there is a real controversy about which the Discovery Institute is silent. I call it the "controversy of the myths." The Institute promotes the Judeo-Christian version of creation found in Genesis (not openly, since it claims intelligent design isn't religious, but that's just a bit of intellectual dishonesty on its part), but there are dozens of other creation myths. Does the Discovery Institute advocate teaching the Egyptian myth of Osiris, who is frequently depicted as a trinity? What about the Persian myth of Mithra, who was born of a god father and a (human) virgin mother? Mithra was born in a stable, recruited 12 disciples, and even had a last supper. What about the Japanese Shinto creation story, which teaches that heaven and earth were formed from an egg-shaped chaotic mass full of germs? Or the Apache story, in which a small bearded man created light, then woman (not man!)?
Lot's of controversy here. Which story is right? How do we know? They are all based on ancient traditions and (some of them) ancient texts. Let's teach the controversy in the churches!
Until then, I'll follow the advice I once saw on a bumper sticker: You don't pray in my schools and I won't think in your churches.
