|
|
There are a number of different positions regarding evolution that depart
from the standard neo-Darwinian version, and some of the world's most
eminent scientists hold some of these views. Lynn Margulies, who is both
widely known as one of the most effective microbiologists the world has
ever known, and also as a thorn in the side of many of the scientists she
works with, has a very different description of what happens at the
microscopic level than fits in easily with the standard notion of survival
of the fittest. Rupert Sheldrake, one of the world's finest botanists, has
an entirely different view that some science students are now actively
experimenting with in their classes. It is distinctly and absolutely a
view that transcends scientific materialism.
So let me try to state the position widely held by neo-Darwinians, of whom
Richard Dawkins is a prime example. It argues that Darwin made one of the
most powerful discoveries in the history of science, that it is
unexceptional in its brilliance, and that anyone who does not accept it on
the terms in which Darwin stated it is a fool.
There are two profound problems with this position. One is that there is
no position anywhere in science that can be stated as absolutely true.
Theories in science can never become facts for one simple reason. That is
that all theories are based on certain a priori assumptions that are not
susceptible of proof. The neo-Darwinians are very clear about what their a
priori position is, and it is one that they openly admit is not
susceptible of proof, but is a belief held with a passion every bit as
strong as that of fundamentalist religion.In the case of neo-Darwinism,
the a priori assumption (common to a great many, if not the vast majority
of contemporary scientists) is that scientific materialism is the only
possible way of viewing nature. In other words, if you can't see it and
measure it, it doesn't exist.
The basic problem with this position is that it means that corporations as
we know them do not exist. There is no such thing as a material
corporation. Nor is there any such thing as a material constitution or
other code of law. Many of the things that are as solid as rocks in our
experience simply do not exist in the eyes of scientific materialism, and
therefore by those standards they are not subject to scientific
investigation or even intelligent discussion.
In my opinion the proper way to handle the intelligent design debate is to
teach it as what it is - a debate. Teach scientific materialism as Dawkins
and company have expressed it. Teach objections to it that have been
raised by legitimate scientists with well established credentials. Then
allow students to explore these issues in terms of their own experience
and debate them.
There is no reason why a religious discussion ever has to come into the
picture. A good many legitimate scientists have strong (sometimes
fundamentalist) religious beliefs. They see no reason to bring those
beliefs into a discussion of the type I am suggesting. One of the
characteristics essential to a scientist is that his or her beliefs do not
enter into the determination of the correctness of evidence arising from
any experiment or other valid observation. Unfortunately, scientific
materialists routinely deny certain established forms of solid scientific
evidence on the basis of their a priori beliefs.
It would not be an easy or self-evident thing to put together a curriculum
of this type, since much of it, in order to represent the true scientific
debate, would involve teaching things like quantum mechanics that may not
be easily understood by high school students. However if the problem were
to be addressed on its own merits, it could bring about a renaissance in
the teaching of science.
All science in every field is an ongoing debate among leading
professionals who are seeking proof of many things that no one has yet
successfully proved. We do not know, for example, whether the universe
will expand forever, or fall in on itself, though the currently available
evidence suggests rather strongly that it will expand forever. However,
discoveries yet to be made could change all that, and it is essential for
scientists to keep their minds open to all possible realities that might
cause them to accept new theories and structures on the basis of new
evidence.
This element of science is all too seldom encountered in school. I
personally never once encountered it in all the science classes I took
while in school.
If science were taught for what it actually is instead of a set of
historical facts with cookbook exercises that are usually pretty stupid,
then we would probably find a lot more people that wanted to build careers
in science.
I do not wish to suggest that putting together such a course would be
simple. It would in no way satisfy the Creationists, but it would satisfy
a lot of people who believe in one of the many different possible forms of
intelligent design at some level. Much more important, however, it would
start to tell the truth about science: what it really is, how it really
works and how it is likely to progress in the future.
There are probably some science courses out there that do that now, but
for the most part they are few and far between.
|
