GroshLink

4 Comments & 1 Trackbacks of "Opting Out in the Debate on Evolution"

"This woman has to be gotten to a hospital."
"A hospital? What is it?"
"It's a building with patients, but that's not important right now."

Funny how the same question can mean different things. When asked in a scientific context, "How did we get here?" has to do with what the mechanisms were, what rules governed the process, and what implications there are for how the world currently works. When asked in a religious context, the same question has to do with ultimate causes and the existence of God. The religious answers are beyond the scope of science and to suggest that they are scientific answers does have implications for the definition of science. Likewise, to try to answer the religious question with the scientific answers is unsatisfying. Unfortunately, too much effort is spent debating which answer is correct without trying to understand the differences in the questions. With that in mind, I completely understand why Drs. Miller and Scott and others have grown tired of fruitless nonconversation. On the other hand, I wish that these public "debates" could actually provide a forum where someone like Dr. Miller could explain how he has come to understand that the questions are different and that an integrative approach is more appropriate than a divisive one.

Posted by Andy Walsh, Jun 22 2005, 16:13

The debate on evolution reported by the New York Times was a cultural or political debate but was not a scientific debate. I can understand why a professor of science would want to avoid such an event. It is hard to believe that school boards in America still take issue with the theory of evolution. Is the theory of gravity next?

Posted by John A. Cantrill, Jul 10 2005, 23:20

The theory of gravity does not explain it all. Like evolution it describes things well in simple situations (eg., dropping a water balloon on someone from the second story of our house or the micro-evolution/adaption of animal to a new environment), but fails to explain all possible scenerios (that's where quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity come into play. How about a theory of quantum gravity?).

As such it is helpful to present the continuing development of scientific research and theory. A broader appreciation by the public of 'the scientific way of thinking' and an increased thoughtful engagement w/our society, culture, enviroment, and global community would be quite helpful.

But as you note much of these debates are little more than politics (and it does get old). None-the-less, education provides a significant structure by which one pulls the various aspects of life together, explains their essences/relationships/components, and provides opportunities to consider how to apply/advocate one's conclusions. Academics should be more engaged in the overall process and not just trying to 'set things straight' in the collegiate/graduate level.

Welcome to the conversation John! Great to be w/you over the weekend.

Posted by Tom, Jul 13 2005, 08:46

That which our comfortable theory of gravity fails to explain we use our "scientific way of thinking" to understand, knowing full well that this "way of thinking" may ultimately revoke our beloved theory. But this is the wonder of science. We would not think of using some form of belief pattern to fill the gaps in understanding. And so it should be with all scientific theories. The study of belief patterns which may dispute our "scientific way of thinking" do deserve consideration but we should step across the "hallway" and enter the classrooms teaching political science, sociology, religious thought and the like for such discussions. As the bible says, "render unto the biology teacher.....

Posted by Johh A. Cantrill, Jul 13 2005, 22:55