To see how anemic our progress has been in certain areas of public life, one need only consider just how less-than-divergent the modern era is in regards to the teaching of evolution as compared with the year 1926. Why 1926? Because this was the year in which William Jennings Bryan squared off against Clarence Darrow in a Tennessee courtroom over whether or not teaching Darwin's theory was licit within the public school system. Strangely, while our society has advanced in so many ways (e.g., race relations, the role of women in the workforce and the accessibility of technology), it has either remained stagnant or regressed since that celebrated case.
Brought to the forefront during presidential elections and given scrutiny during rewrites of school curricula, the theory of evolution remains strangely contentious as a public issue. Few theories generate such strident defense and antagonism, certainly not the theory of gravity nor the theory of relativity.
What has been intellectually scarring for our society has been the misappropriation of the very word "theory." Numerous people equate scientific theory with the colloquial usage of the word, thus, the oft-repeated comment of "evolution's just a theory" as though a theory were a mere hunch. This has terrible ramifications for it justifies in the mind of certain believers the negation of something tested time and time again and accepted almost unanimously by the leading scientists. Further deleterious effects can be felt at the classroom level.
In a society where willful ignorance can be seen as a virtue (i.e., one's virtue is tied to how easily his unschooled mind can be manipulated by those who profit from ignorance), such an occurrence is a grave danger. The principal opposition to the theory of evolution comes from the religious right. This sector of our society currently fields two viable candidates for the presidency of the United States and has made incursions regarding the selection of appropriate lesson plans for science classes.
The chief grievance given by the religious right regarding science as it is to be taught is that competing "theories" are not being taught in the classroom, (i.e., intelligent design and/or creationism are being excluded). The problem is that the Book of Genesis is not a theory, nor is the presence of a deity who constructed such a complex world from nothingness. These are matters of faith, to which all citizens are entitled to subscribe, if they wish. Just as one does not expect French to be taught in Spanish classes, nor the history of Romanian film to be taught in an English literature class, one should not expect a decidedly different discipline to be taught outside its proper place. Yet this is the case regarding intelligent design and creationism. They are perfectly viable subjects, provided that they are taught in the appropriate departments. Those departments are, of course, philosophy, religious studies, anthropology and Sunday School courses, not science.
Introducing the non scientific into the laboratory can have dire consequences. In the matter of introducing elements of faith, the risk is of a certain hegemony in that compromised discipline. This refers directly to the possibility that indeed the Book of Genesis will be the competing "theory," thus generating contempt from those who subscribe to a different set of religious beliefs.
The science classroom/laboratory is no place for conflicts of another discipline. Arguing religion or introducing religion into a biology course is as irrational as placing science in a French classroom. Whether or not there is a divine creator is something that the laboratory -at least at this present time-can neither prove nor disprove as there is no scientific method that can be applied to issues of faith. For debate on the existence of a creator who conforms to holy scripture, the best environment is a class that directly touches upon this subject, chiefly the realms of philosophy and theology.
The argument by most scientists is not entirely against the teaching of intelligent design. Rather, it is about where it should be taught. Science class is for science, that branch of learning that has laboratory experiments, fossil records, hypotheses and other material elements for proving or disproving. Intelligent design is not science. It is philosophical speculation, more appropriate for a class on philosophy. Just as metaphysics is not a hard science, neither is intelligent design.
Addendum: I in no way wish to see the right to worship curtailed in any form. Believers have every right to prayer provided that others are not mandated to engage in the same activity. Every activity has its proper place. Surgery takes place in an operating theater, operas take place on a stage and religion has its rightful place in the churches, not the science classes.
No comments:
Post a Comment