evolution

Rarely will I express admiration for any one related to the University of Kansas, but in this case it is well-deserved. KU Chancellor Robert Hemenway speaks up in defense of science education:

“The attack on evolution continues across America and compels me to again state the obvious: The University of Kansas is a major public research university, a scientific community,” Hemenway said in an e-mail. “We are committed to fact-based research and teaching. As an academic, scientific community, we must affirm scientific principles.” [...]

The clueless Board of Education weighs in:

[...] Steve Abrams, chairman of the state board, last week told an audience of social conservatives that evolution was incompatible with Christian beliefs.

“At some point in time, if you compare evolution and the Bible, you have to decide which one you believe,” Abrams said during the gathering in Independence, Kan. “That’s the bottom line.” [...]

So much for intelligent design “not being religion.” The following quote from Chancellor Hemenway is the one you should take away from all this.

[...] “On a personal level, I see no contradiction in being a person of faith who believes in God and evolution, and I’m sure many others at this university agree,” the chancellor wrote.

He added: “The university’s position is not an attack on anyone. We respect the right of the individual to his or her beliefs, including faith-based beliefs about creation. However, creationism and intelligent design are most appropriately taught in a religion, philosophy, or sociology class, rather than a science class.” [...]

These are points I’ve made time and again. I don’t believe that any one who tries to compare evolutionary science with religious belief on the same terms can truly understand either one.

Here’s an example of how not to argue that point, courtesy of hard-left bomb-thrower* PZ Myers (no links, see the Commissar for more) — being religious is “not good for a culture,” the U.S. “is afflicted with particularly malignant forms of religion,” and the problem “may not be religion itself, but irrationality and anti-intellectualism and ignorance, something our country has in volume.” You can read the rest if you can stomach it. He’s howling away in the comments section over at the Politburo Diktat, as many leftists do when you, uh, you know, repeat what they say.

I prefer not to focus on that. This is an issue which concerns most of us, I think, and we all have a stake in its solution. America’s prosperity and position in the world are due in no small part to the scientific progress it has made, and we can’t afford to water that down in a misdirected “search” for traditional values.

Here’s an argument coming from the Left, specifically from our old friend Josh Rosenau (who in his spare time away from blogging is a grad student in biology at KU), about the case in Dover, PA that is worth a read. You’ll notice (apart from the occasional reference to “intelligent-design” defenders as “IDolators”) that no one is called any names or belittled in any way. I quote the good part:

I’m divided in my desires. On one hand, I want this nonsense done with, and if the courts will do the job, the lazy man in me says fine. The scientist in me says that science class should only have science in them, and IDC isn’t science.

On the other hand, I think that legal rulings which simply cut off a controversial social argument are often counterproductive. It weakens the winning side, since there’s nothing to push for any more, and it strengthens the loser, since they have a permanent issue to run on. [Is that an argument in favor of a conservative judicial philosophy? Josh, we hardly knew ye. -ed] Think of Roe v. Wade, Epperson v. Arkansas or Engel v. Vitale. Have those rulings dulled the intensity of the debate over abortion, creationism or school prayer? I doubt it. They have created perpetual issues for partisans to campaign on, only to be powerless to effect any change, leaving them the issue to campaign on in perpetuity.

Maybe that’s what’s really going on here. Josh continues:

My ideal ruling in this case would be narrow. It would cite the religious statements made by school board members and IDolators in Dover and throughout that movement, and leave the issue there. The content of a science curriculum ought to be established in a dialog between the parents in the community and the scientific community, but the courts don’t deal in ought. The court should block the warnings as unjustifiably attacking one scientific theory over others, block the implementation of the IDC curriculum and the introduction of the IDC textbook, but not ban them. Just to reiterate existing case law:

[T]he essential characteristics of science are:

1. It is guided by natural law;
2. It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
3. It is testable against the empirical world;
4. Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
5. Its is falsifiable.

The contents of science class must meet those standards. If evidence is presented in Board meetings that a secular purpose is served by presenting a theory that meets those criteria, fire away. IDC doesn’t do that, but the forum for that discussion is the community, not a court room.

I would further add that of those things, “intelligent design” might satisfy 1. or 2. but doesn’t come close to satisfying 3., 4., or 5.

He’s right about one thing, though — the proper place for this discussion is in individual communities and not courtrooms. Courts may be the last refuge for those seeking justice, but they are increasingly serving as the last refuge for those without a leg to stand on. Right now, “intelligent design” is in that category.

CORRECTION: Josh says in the comments that “IDolators” is not his coinage. Read his whole series on this topic; I think you’ll see sound points that you ought to keep in mind the next time an anti-religious diatribe foments in your mind (as has often happened in mine).