2008 Woodie Awards
Redefining Science
Jeremy Bruno
Issue date: 5/10/06 Section: Opinion
I would be embarrassed to call myself conservative in 2006. Last November, the Kansas Board of Education redefined science in the elementary curriculum, leaving room, critics say, to insert creationist ideals. The definition was modified to exclude "natural explanations" of phenomena.
The six to four vote was a resounding Republican victory.
Decisions like these made under the influence of certain members of the Republican Party have been puzzling at the least to the rest of the world. In America, we have to debate whether or not to teach creationism or some facsimile (intelligent design) in the science classes of our public schools. In Europe, it is not even considered.
In fact, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Most Rev. Rowan Williams, seemed surprised that the question was even asked:
"Asked specifically whether creationism should be taught in schools, the archbishop responded, 'I don't think it should, actually.' But he added that opposing creationism in the curriculum was 'different from discussing, teaching about what creation means.'"*
The Archbishop is dead on; we are taking the risk of devaluing science and religion by trying to mix the two as substantial equals. They are not, and never have been, equal in this manner.
Let's clarify. Scientific theory is driven by evidence. Scientists do not, as Isaac Asimov sarcastically stated, wake up one morning after a night of drinking and say, "I have it!" without sufficient evidence to support the idea.
Take evolution. Evolution is a theory - a scientific idea supported by overwhelming evidence - that has been built from the original observations of Charles Darwin. In the 20th century, fossil evidence has shown, if nothing else, a move from less complex organisms to more complex, and even some clear transitional stages, such as the recent find of a prehistoric fish that showed a definite similarity to subsequent tetrapods. Finally, in the past few decades, genetics has supported evolution in the short run; the genes of the strongest survive, passing on to the next generation.
The six to four vote was a resounding Republican victory.
Decisions like these made under the influence of certain members of the Republican Party have been puzzling at the least to the rest of the world. In America, we have to debate whether or not to teach creationism or some facsimile (intelligent design) in the science classes of our public schools. In Europe, it is not even considered.
In fact, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Most Rev. Rowan Williams, seemed surprised that the question was even asked:
"Asked specifically whether creationism should be taught in schools, the archbishop responded, 'I don't think it should, actually.' But he added that opposing creationism in the curriculum was 'different from discussing, teaching about what creation means.'"*
The Archbishop is dead on; we are taking the risk of devaluing science and religion by trying to mix the two as substantial equals. They are not, and never have been, equal in this manner.
Let's clarify. Scientific theory is driven by evidence. Scientists do not, as Isaac Asimov sarcastically stated, wake up one morning after a night of drinking and say, "I have it!" without sufficient evidence to support the idea.
Take evolution. Evolution is a theory - a scientific idea supported by overwhelming evidence - that has been built from the original observations of Charles Darwin. In the 20th century, fossil evidence has shown, if nothing else, a move from less complex organisms to more complex, and even some clear transitional stages, such as the recent find of a prehistoric fish that showed a definite similarity to subsequent tetrapods. Finally, in the past few decades, genetics has supported evolution in the short run; the genes of the strongest survive, passing on to the next generation.
Be the first to comment on this story