Science, Atheism, Religion
Andrew Olmsted is a good example of this, writing:
[T]he 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.
Olmsted might stop being disingenuous and pay attention to the beginning of the sticker, which reads "Evolution is a theory, not a fact." This blatantly misrepresents evolution, subtly misrepresents science, and does so in a manner completely consistent with standard creationist smears. If the sticker was created with a creationist agenda in mind, it can't be treated as significantly less of a constitutional violation than teaching creationism itself. Imagine, would passing out a creationist-based pamphlet attacking evolution be constitutional? Of course not — and neither is a sticker that pushes just a couple of standard talking points from that pamphlet. It's not credible to say that the sticker is designed to promote skepticism when it lies about evolution and singles out evolution for special treatment.
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.
Here Olmsted manages a bewildering argosy of errors: he misrepresents atheism, misrepresents evolution, and misrepresents the ACLU. Atheism isn't a belief system of any sort, much less a religion that is being promoted. Atheism isn't even a belief, but were we to grant that it is a belief a single belief can't qualify as a belief system. Evolution isn't a part of atheism and neither is atheism a part of evolution — or, if it is, it is no more a part of evolution than it is a part of plate tectonics and relativity. Evolution is no more a "pillar" of atheism than it is a "pillar" of any other aspect of science.
The ACLU and other organizations (including many religious organizations) push the separation of church and state because the government doesn't have the authority to single out any religious beliefs for support or endorsement. We must remember that by endorsing this creationist perspective on evolution, the schools aren't simply privileging religion over irreligion or theism over atheism; instead, they are privileging one religious tradition's perspective on science over all other Christian, religious, and secular perspectives.
This is why Americans United (an organization founded by Protestants and currently headed by a Protestant minister) says:
Much like the famous 1925 Scopes "monkey trial," the case in Cobb County centers around a debate between the advocates of religious teaching and the defenders of science. Marjorie Rogers, who organized a petition drive among local parents, admitted on the witness stand that she is a creationist who advocates "intelligent design." Like other ID advocates, she claims her ideas are supported by some scientists and that evolution is therefore suspect on a scientific basis.
Both AU and the ACLU understand what the separation of church and state is about.
[T]rying 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.
This is an interesting statement because Olmsted knows and acknowledges that the schools are not, in fact, pointing out any facts about the scientific method generally or scientific theories generally. Where does that leave his claim? Well, it doesn't look very honest, I'm afraid. What's truly counterproductive is to so blatantly and willfully misrepresent people you disagree with. When you know that people are objecting to a sticker because it pushes religion-driven falsehoods that inappropriately single out evolution for special treatment, it's completely inappropriate to make the rebarbative accusation that they are opposing a more general encouragement of skepticism and scientific thinking.
David Mobley, comments:
I think this is another example of the fact that it's simply not possible to be truly morally neutral. Teachings which hint of the existence of God are not permitted (because of the establishment clause), but those which hint that God does not exist are fine. Why? It's (apparently) preferable to establish atheism than theism.
Of course, teaching evolutionary theory does no more to establish atheism (or "hint that God does not exist") than does teaching any other aspect of science or any other scientific theory. When plate tectonics is taught, is anyone's god included? No. When relativity is discussed, is anyone's god included? No. There aren't any aspects of science lessons that include theism, but that doesn't entail establishing atheism. To achieve that, teachers would have to include material purporting to show that theism is unreasonable — kind of like stickers purporting to show that accepting evolution as a fact is unreasonable.
The chief argument against teaching (for example) Intelligent Design is typically NOT that the science is bad, but that it violates the establishment clause.
This author is being no less disingenuous than Olmsted. The legal argument against teaching Intelligent Design in public schools is based upon constitutional principles. Intelligent Design is not supported by science but it is motivated by particular religious beliefs; because of this, teaching Intelligent Design would give endorsement and validation to those religious beliefs. Does the government have the authority to single out these religious beliefs for endorsement and validation? No. Therefore, it's unconstitutional.
There is no parallel with the teaching of evolutionary theory because evolution is supported by science and there are no religious or atheistic motivations behind it. The absence of gods in evolutionary theory is due to the fact that gods are absent in scientific theories generally. You can't have a god play a role in a scientific theory because a god can't be tested for, measured, etc. Atheism isn't the motivation for the absence of gods, a desire for good and productive science is. That's why much of the force against teaching Intelligent Design comes from scientists and their "chief argument" is that the science is bad. Atrocious, in fact.
Update #1: David Mobley has updated his post, writing: "First, "Evolution is a theory, not a fact." That is completely true. Any good scientist should affirm that."
Actually, no good scientist will affirm this. Every time I see such a claim, I know that I am dealing with someone fundamentally ignorant of real issues.
Mobley say that he is a "postdoctoral researcher in biophysics," but if that is true then it is amazing that he thinks this. That evolution occurs is a fact. How, exactly, evolution occurs is theory. There is no disputing this. We have the exact same situation in other fields, like gravity. That gravity happens is a fact. How, precisely, gravity operates is the subject of theory — the Theory of Gravity. Thus, gravity can be said to be both fact and theory. I write "can be said" because no one bothers. There are no religious cranks trying to dispute the Theory of Gravity, after all.
Mobley's failure to understand this fundamental point means that his statements about evolution just aren't credible. In other words, the fact that Mobley doesn't know that evolution is a fact as well as a theory should be kept firmly in mind when read things like (from email)...
I should mention that your assertion that evolution is "science" and intelligent design is not is simply not true. Science is a method.
Well, he has the "method" part right, but Intelligent Design doesn't follow the scientific method. It doesn't make testable predictions. It doesn't offer any testable alternatives to evolutionary theory. ID supporters don't go through peer-review and publish in peer-reviewed journals. Why? Because they aren't doing real science.
Mobley offers an analogy of teaching about the Big Bang with religious motives. Would that be wrong? No, if the lessons are the same. Is this analogous to the sticker? No, because the sticker: misrepresents evolution, misrepresents science, singles out evolution for special treatment, and does so from a creationist perspective — thus privileging a creationist critique of evolution over all other religious and secular perspectives. Teaching the science of the Big Bang, even if it happens to support one's religious beliefs, simply doesn't do this. (And I'd love to know where he got the idea that "Many atheists do not like the idea of big-bang theory" — I've certainly never met one.)
Now, if the creators of the sticker had made much more general comments about treating science skeptically, they would have been OK. But they didn't. Why? Because they wanted to single out evolution for special treatment. Then they went and had to do so in a way that misrepresented it. They got greedy in what they wanted and, as a result, overreached.
Update #2: As I expected, David Mobley responds to my noting the absence of science in Intelligent Design by pointing to a "publication" by Stephen C. Meyer. It's fortunate when creationist arguments are so transparently lousy. Mobley's idea of a "testable prediction" is that " Intelligent Design predicts quite definitely that it's impossible to evolve a man from a chimpanzee, or a bird from a fish." Well, I look forward to his research that tests this and demonstrates that it is, indeed, impossible.
I won't hold my breath, though. Like I said, no one who claims that evolution is just a theory and not a fact just isn't credible. They either don't know the definition of evolution ("change in allele frequency in a population over time") or they know it but don't think that allele frequencies change in populations over time. The former is understandable for the average lay person, the latter less so. Neither is understandable or acceptable with someone who claims to be at all involved with the biological sciences.
Update #3: Andrew Olmsted responds as well. I apologize for originally misspelling his name, but that's certainly no excuse to continue to misrepresent atheism. I mean, what sort of person does all their research at Dictionary.com and calls it a day? Can I look up Christianity there and conclude that know all I need? If I critiqued Christianity or Islam based solely on what I found there, people would call me an idiot.
And they'd be right. Atheism isn't nearly as complex as those subjects, but the fact is you aren't going to learn a great deal about a concept from a short dictionary definition. Maybe that's why someone invented the encyclopedia and, you know, other reference books.
It's not "quibbling" to say that a single belief isn't belief system — it's simply an honest and forthright understanding of the definition of "system." A system can't be made of a single element. Sometimes the facts of language just don't support our assumptions. The proper reaction isn't to attack others for "quibbling" or for focusing on "semantics" — it's to learn and change. If I learn that something isn't what I assumed it to be (like I'm spelling a name wrong), then I apologize, correct myself, and move on. I certainly don't get defensive. Everyone makes goofs. You live, you learn, and you keep going. It's no big deal.
More than Mobley, Olmsted is also ignorant about evolution — he really does think that evolution is merely a theory and not also a fact. At least David Mobley has acknowledged that evolution is also fact (in email). Maybe someone can do Olmsted a favor and buy him an introductory text on biology for Christmas — one that explains both the fact and the theory of evolution. Just to give him a head start, though: evolution is defined as the change in allele frequency in a population over time. This is a fact, not a semantic quibble. It's the definition of the term in biology. Even speciation has been observed. How, exactly, this happens over time is the theory. Like gravity: that it occurs is fact, how it occurs is the subject of theory.
And, to respond to Olmsted's final point: when people presume to pontificate on subjects without caring enough to bother to do the least research (and limiting yourself to Dictionary.com falls well short of the least research on a subject - unless you've at least tried Wikipedia, you aren't really trying) then you can't expect people not to mock the absurd conclusions you reach. Demonstrate that you care enough to learn, first, and then people will care enough to reach out and engage in dialogue. Start talking about "theory" and "fact" in science without knowing how science uses those terms, and accept the consequence that you won't be taken seriously.
Just to be fair, I'll acknowledge that I'm sure that I've made the mistake of posting opinions on something that I didn't know anything about and/or didn't really research. I can't point to an example, obviously, because if I knew about it I'd have already fixed it. But I'll assume that I must have done it because I am human. I'll also say that if someone links to it and say "Hey, isn't that ridiculous, why didn't he bother to learn something before passing judgment?" they'll be absolutely right. My opinions on a subject can't be taken seriously if I don't care enough to learn something about it first. I certainly won't demand that people prove me wrong, otherwise I'll keep promoting my ill-formed ideas. I see little point in that, but perhaps that's just me.
Note: Andrew indicates that he isn't pleased with any of the above. He doesn't say that any of it is wrong or that I have misrepresented him in anyway, though. He simply seems upset that I don't go out of my way to take nonsense seriously - that doesn't make this a religion, any more than not taking Bigfoot seriously is a religion. Sincerely believed nonsense is still nonsense and there is no excuse for promoting a view when you haven't taken the time to research the issues. If you are going to get defensive when that's pointed out, then your skin is too thin for what you are doing. After all, just how difficult is it to, say, read more than a dictionary before writing a couple of hundred words staking out a position on a controversial matter?
Update #4 David Mobely writes that "The fundamental problem is that Cline, the author of the atheism post, continues to insist that the ONLY definition of evolution is "change in allele frequency over time.""
This is a false accusation and, more significantly, David knows that it is false. How can I be sure of that? Because David knows that I have repeated over and over that "Evolution is both a fact and a theory." If I thought that the only definition of evolution were "change in allele frequency over time," then I could not say that evolution is both a fact and a theory — I would say that it is only a fact. By saying that it is both, however, I am emphasizing that there multiple ways in which the term is used in biology.
Aside from being knowingly false, David's accusation is significant for another reason: what he is accusing me of it, arguably, something that he is guilty of himself. How so? Thus far, I don't think that I have seen David use "evolution" and mean "change in allele frequency over time." Every time he uses the term, he means evolutionary theory. He even objects to the term being used in its strict sense. How can that be? I think that his commitment to his religious beliefs is interfering with his reasoning.
You see, if David were to openly acknowledge that evolution is both a fact and a theory, then he would have to also acknowledge that the disclaimer sticker in question is factually incorrect. As a good scientist, then, he would have to object to its presence and want it removed. Even if it doesn't violate the separation of church and state, it would still have to go from a purely scientific perspective. David, however, appears to have a commitment to religious beliefs that stand in opposition to evolution and support Intelligent Design — both of which are causes that are advanced by the presence of the sticker.
It may therefore be easier, from a psychological perspective, to persist in acting as though "evolution" isn't really used in the sense of "change in allele frequency over time" and act as though it only has application as short-hand for "evolutionary theory." That way, "evolution" really is "just a theory" and "not a fact." The disclaimer is preserved and religious commitments aren't overridden by cold, uncompromising reality.
Kinda sad, isn't it?
I'll say here publicly the same thing I told David in email: "Evolution is both fact and theory. Anyone who says that evolution is "just" theory and "not" fact is ignorant, stupid, or being dishonest." I'll leave it up to readers to form their own conclusions about which of these may apply in this particular case.
Read More:
Comments
No comments yet. Leave a Comment