« Gaming a Complex System | Main | Shout It From the Rooftops »

November 09, 2004

Science and (as?) Religion

David Mobley notes an ACLU suit regarding a school district that has placed stickers in biology textbooks noting that the theory of evolution is a theory and not a fact. The ACLU claims this violates the separation of church and state. It's this kind of silliness that really undermines an organization that serves an important role in American politics. I should probably note up front that I happen to believe that the theory of evolution is the best theory available to explain the development of life on Earth. I have no doubt that, over time, the theory will undergo revision and refinement as additional experimentation demonstrates areas where the theory doesn't yet fit with reality, but that's part of the scientific method. I realize that the reason those stickers are in those books is probably because a number of parents in the local school district hold to a more creationist view of how life developed on Earth. However, the placement of a statement of fact inside textbooks, even if done so for religious reasons, is not a violation of church and state. The ACLU might point to the rest of the sticker, which states that "[evolution should be] approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." Horror of horrors, children are being told they should critically consider something? Good Lord, man, don't you realize you're preparing children to question authority? It must be stopped, at once. More seriously, evolution should be critically considered. If the theory is sound, it will stand up to critical evaluation. If it's unsound, isn't the goal of science to do more than simply bolster preexisting theories? If evolution as currently understood is inaccurate, shouldn't we be pleased to see it debunked and a more accurate theory raised in its place? If anything, the religion that's being introduced into this court case is that of the plaintiff, which is a vigorous proponent of the belief system known as atheism. The plaintiff is upset someone is trying to undermine one of the pillars of their belief system. That's understandable, but it's not the place of the courts to exalt one belief system over another. That is actually the whole point of the 'separation of church and state' mantra the ACLU likes to chant without necessarily understanding. I do sympathize with the book's author, who notes that singling out evolution suggests that the rest of the science is set in stone. The school would do better to take the time to fully explain the scientific method to its students, so that they understand that all of science is a system of theories that are always subject to the next great scientist who can tear them down to replace them with something better. (It's almost like...evolution.) Maybe they could even inspire some kids to become scientists and come up with some theories of their own. But trying to claim that pointing out the facts of the scientific method are predicated on theories that are always (theoretically) disprovable somehow amounts to an illegal merging of church and state is foolish and, ultimately, counterproductive. It's suits like these that really undermine the ACLU when it tries to address real civil liberties issues.

Posted at November 9, 2004 11:37 AM

Andrew Olmsted

Comment policy

I apologize for only allowing authenticated commenters, but comment spam overwhelms the site if I don't use those measures to prevent it. I reserve the right to delete any comment, although generally comments will only be deleted due to use of profanity or personal attacks on people. I have no objection to vigorous argument, but when name-calling begins, I'm putting a stop to it. In the immortal words of Eugene Levy, "People, people, let's stop this before somebody says something untrue!" If you want to call people names, I recommend you get your own blog.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://andrewolmsted.com/mt/pings.cgi/846

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Science and (as?) Religion:

» Science, Atheism, Religion from Agnosticism/Atheism
The Georgia lawsuit over disclaimer stickers in science texts continues to confuse people. All around the internet you can find writers who don't understand that evolution is science, creationism is religion, and that the debate has nothing to do with... [Read More]

Tracked on November 12, 2004 03:07 PM

Comments

Thanks for the link. I totally agree with you when you say this: "If evolution as currently understood is inaccurate, shouldn't we be pleased to see it debunked and a more accurate theory raised in its place?" Good scientists, I think, recognize that science always benefits from criticism, because it forces people to do better science. (If there's no holes in your science, it's awfully hard to criticize). So I appreciate your stance.
As a scientist, I've learned this in my own work: It's easiest to make mistakes if the people who critique my work already agree with it. It's far better to have someone who disagrees with it critique it, because then I get a better idea of how to address potential arguments against it.
Anyway, thanks for the post. Glad to hear you think this is a silly approach, as well.

Posted by: David M. at November 9, 2004 12:35 PM

Andrew,
If you haven't noticed, an atheist site used our posts as a launching point for a post of its own, accusing you of being disengenuous and me of various other things. Apparently we're "confused'. If you want to see the post, visit my post again; I've linked to it from an update.

Best wishes,
David

Posted by: David M. at November 12, 2004 03:34 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?