One of the hottest topics in America regarding science and education involves the debate concerning the teaching of creationism or intelligent design (ID) in the public classrooms as an alternative to evolution.And, despite the recent court rulings in Dover, PA that stated that intelligent design is not a science, states across the country are moving forward with plans to teach ID in the classrooms. The proponents argue that the public has a right to understand the "debate"; however, science teachers and academicians disagree since intelligent design cannot be considered a science since it ignores natural explanations for how life has evolved and relies entirely upon the notion of a creator.Many religious groups have supported the teaching of evolution; and disagree with the intelligent design movement since it possesses the potential to reduce the integrity of science with the understanding that science and religion should be kept separate since these two ideas require two separate philosophies.Science has no room for information that lacks facts or empirical evidence. Yet, some religious groups have argued that it is unfair to leave God out of the scientific discussions and that a secular society will ruin the foundation of America should God be removed from the classrooms. Sadly, this only illustrates that such groups do not fully understand the definition of "science" or the benefit of ensuring that children are taught how to conduct "good science".And so, regardless of your religious preference, this space is open to all faiths--both believers & nonbelievers who are fascinated with evolution and its implications for how we live our lives and enjoy this world. Evolution is a rich and subtly complicated field. Let's explore its nuances and help each other understand the science.WHAT IS SCIENCE?The central argument against intelligent design creationism is that it does not follow standard, scientific methodology. As a result, intelligent design creationism does not qualify as being "scientific" since it relies upon supernatural phenomena, which cannot be measured, observed, or recorded uniformly similar to that of natural phenomena.But, what exactly does the term, "scientific", mean?While there are a variety of methodologies used in science, no one particular method can be agreed upon by scientists since different fields of science require different methodological approaches.What can be agreed upon by scientists regarding the term "scientific" is that science relies upon naturalism.In general, there are two major aspects to naturalism: 1) Methodological naturalism, which is concerned with scientific inquiry of natural phenomena; and, this aspect of naturalism is considered the foundation by which science obtains new knowledge; and, 2) philosophical naturalism, which is a general way of seeing reality and/or the universe--i.e., a metaphysical perspective of the world around us.These two aspects of naturalism seem to be connected since both, whether methodological or metaphysical, rely upon those natural phenomena that one can see, hear, taste, touch, or smell--i.e., empiricism.
In contrast, supernaturalism pertains to forces or powers that are regarded as beyond nature and rely upon intuition, revelation, or a priori reasoning; however, supernatural forces or powers cannot be explained using laws of the natural world and thus lack any procedure for determining the legitimacy of intuitive claims or revelations (Forrest, 2000). Because the supernatural exists beyond nature, it falls outside of naturalistic explanations and thus the principles of scientific inquiry. This occurs because perceptions of the supernatural will vary from person to person, society to society, and culture to culture. As a result, scientists have no other choice but to disregard supernatural claims since there exists no uniformity as it relates to observation or measurements.The difference between the natural and the supernatural is the key argument concerning the evolution/ID creationism debate. The theory of evolution uses empirical observations from the natural world to draw its conclusions; however, intelligent design creationism attempts to draw conclusions using supernatural interpretations that no person could possibly observe, measure, or record. Likewise, it addresses creationism as accepted by Judeo-Christian religions. Since there are multiple examples of creation stories across the world-- many of them from cultures existing to this day--the evidence of a wide array of creation stories lends support to the conclusion that supernatural claims are not uniform, not observable, and not measurable by scientific procedures; and, as a result, are not relevant to scientific discussions.How Can I Help???The enormity behind the central argument of the intelligent design "debate", or any other "debate" involving the implications of supernatural phenomena, rests upon the fundamental principles and definition of science.Please join the many people and organizations that are committed to ensuring that the integrity of science is upheld by teaching evolution in the public classrooms, as well as to share the mystery and wonder of evolutionary biology with all people, regardless of faith or culture.Here are some ways you can help:1) Write to your representative and/or local school board of your state and ask that evolution continue being taught in the public classrooms without the intrusion of non-scientific discussions involving intelligent design, creationism, or other supernatural beliefs.2) Become a member of the National Center for Science Education --the nationally recognized research center that is committed to protecting scientific integrity and the teaching of evolution in the classrooms.3) Share information about evolution with your local church group and/or congregation. Explain to them that there are many religious faiths and organizations that accept evolution as a scientific fact.4) Talk to your family and friends and share this information with them. Keep in mind that such a discussion may be sensitive to another person, especially a family member; therefore, be sure to approach the subject matter with patience and care. And, while the conversation may not wholeheartedly convince them, it will set the spark in motion.Science Quotes"Science is organized knowledge."
Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) English philosopher. Education."Science is the systematic classification of experience."
George Henry Lewes (1817-78) English writer and critic."Science is simply common sense at its best that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic."
Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-95) English biologist."Science is nothing but trained and organized common sense differing from the latter only as a veteran may differ from a raw recruit: and its methods differ from those of common sense only as far as the guardsman's cut and thrust differ from the manner in which a savage wields his club."
Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-95) English biologist. "The Method of Zadig" in Collected Essays IV."Science is nothing but developed perception, interpreted intent, common sense rounded out and minutely articulated."
George Santayana (1863-1952) U. S. philosopher and writer. The Life of Reason."Science is facts; just as houses are made of stone, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science."
Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912) French mathematician."Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition."
Adam Smith (1723-90) Scottish economist. The Wealth of Nations, 1776."Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know."
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) English philosopher, mathematician."It requires a very unusual mind to undertake the analysis of the obvious."
Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) English philosopher and mathematician."[Science is] the labor and handicraft of the mind."
Francis Bacon (1561-1626) English essayist, philosopher, statesman."[Science is] the literature of truth."
Josh Billings (Henry Wheeler Shaw) (1818-85) U. S. humorist."[Science is] practical philosophy."
René Descartes (1596-1650) French philosopher, mathematician."[Science is] a series of judgments, revised without ceasing."
Pierre Emile Duclaux (1840-1904) French biochemist, bacteriologist."[Science is] the desire to know causes."
William Hazlitt (1778-1830) English essayist."[Science is] an imaginative adventure of the mind seeking truth in a world of mystery."
Sir Cyril Herman Hinshelwood (1897-1967) English chemist. Nobel prize 1956."[Science is] the knowledge of consequences, and dependence of one fact upon another."
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) English philosopher, author."[Science is] piecemeal revelation."
Oliver Wendell Holmes 1 (1809-94) U. S. poet, essayist, physician."[Science is] a great game. It is inspiring and refreshing. The playing field is the universe itself."
Isidor Isaac Rabi (1898-1988) U. S. physicist. Nobel prize 1944."[Science is] not belief, but the will to find out."
Anon"In essence, science is a perpetual search for an intelligent and integrated comprehension of the world we live in."
Cornelius Bernardus Van Neil (1897- ) U. S. microbiologist."I venture to define science as a series of interconnected concepts and conceptual schemes arising from experiment and observation and fruitful of further experiments and observations. The test of a scientific theory is, I suggest, its fruitfulness."
James Bryant Conant (1893-1978) U. S. Chemist and Educator."Science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary."
Albert Einstein (1879-1955) U. S. physicist, born in Germany.
