In the Minority
A couple of weeks ago, at one of my tables, (besides being a grad student and occasional blogger, I am also a waitress), I had a family of four, where the father asked me if I actually believed in evolution.
I replied, “Of course I do”. He looked at me in disbelief and said,
“Well Emily, if you believe in so-called "evolution", then how can you explain who put intelligence in us?”
While I walked away thinking that evolution had forgotten to “put intelligence” in him, I was struck by his complete conviction (even after telling him my 10th grade biology class explanation on Darwin) that a supreme being was behind the creation of humans.
Weeks later, still thinking about it, I decided to read up on the evolution debate…
and apparently, I may be the crazy one…
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These days, around 40 states are taking steps to teaching alternatives to evolution. Intelligent design is in the running for the alternative theory du jour (for background on the debate see here.) According to CNN, 65% of the public favor teaching creationism, 37% want creationism taught instead of evolution, and 55% believe God created humans in their present form (see here)
A Gallup poll found that only 48% believe that humans evolved over time, but 18% of them believe that it was guided by some supreme being for the purpose of creating life as we know it today. While college grads are more in line with accepting evolution (66%), 14% of students with a high school degree or less, just don’t know what to think.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
After finding the above stats, and doing some more research, there are three issues I have with this debate:
1) The Teachings: I find it odd that since most of us learned Darwin's evolution theory in school that a majority of the public is not in agreement about it. This begs the questions; how are we teaching evolution to our students and how are we, as a community, creating space for diaglogues about religion and how it can coexist with evolution.
2) Education Policy Groups: some of these groups are giving Intelligent Design (ID) clout and allowing it to be on equal playing field with the theory of evolution. AEI is putting on a conference discussing whether ID should be taught in schools. Meanwhile, ID has not even come close to a scientific theory, let alone should be debated about actually being taught. Even the leaders of the ID movement are stating that it is not ready for teaching. Giving ID theory space and time to discuss its role in public education seems ahead of the game and confusing to the public who are not informed enough to make a educated decision.
3) The Press: media is treating this coverage similar to a debate on abortion or gay rights. This is incorrect to think they are alike. Abortion and gay rights, are based on values and societal contexts. The ID vs. evolution debate is not similar. Evolution is a scientifically founded theory where intelligent design is not. It shouldn’t even be a question. Therefore, the media shouldn’t be “kindling the flames” of the public by writing articles which give a lot of space to explaining Intelligent Design and not explaining scientific facts when defending evolution.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hopefully, in the next couple of weeks, the courts will quelch this fire by declaring these cases in violation between separation of church and state, and therefore ending this debate for the time being...
Until then, this waitress will continue to engage in the evolution debate at her tables in Georgetown.
5 Comments:
-
You find it hard to believe that most people don't believe in evolution even though they were taught it growing up...
By
That's funny. If it were so believeable and true, why don't more people by into it? Because it's a theroy with major, gaping holes. It's not what happened, it's what might of happened. It's incredibly arrogant to act like anyone who doesn't believe (yes I said believe - it takes faith to believe in evolution) in evolution is an idiot, fundamentalist.
, at October 10, 2005 8:47 AM
-
I think that Emily's right here: the question is one of a scientific theory and a non-scientific one.
By
Assuming we passed introductory high school science, we should know that by using the scientific method you can't ever prove something true-- but the question must be formulated so that it is possible to be fairly certain it’s false. Intelligent design isn't a scientific theory because it's not testable in this way. You can't use empiricism to conclude that an intelligent creator probably didn't make human beings. Period. End of scientific method story.
Maybe if there's a place for ID in the public school Biology classroom, it's in this capacity-- to illustrate the difference between Science and Not-Science. To me, that could possibly be a defensible use of science class time.
NMD, at October 10, 2005 1:59 PM
-
The best way to figure out how to win over the hearts and minds of people who disagree with you is to completely understand their ideas.
By
That means warming to them, accepting that they could be truth to these people etc.
The greatest fault of college/grad students is the absolutism of their stance--I'm right, they're wrong and stupid.
You won't win this battle that way. Jenny D., at October 12, 2005 8:00 AM
-
I've been thinking about this more, and I wanted to clarify my position above. I stick by what I said, but don't think I did a good job of addressing the implications of that statement.
By
I'm not sure that the goal of teaching evolutionary theory should be convincing people that evolution is the origin of humankind. But, in the very least, science teachers should make sure that students understand the argument, can discuss why it's consistent with the scientific method and has become a scientific theory, and understand how one might use scientific evidence to disprove it.
While I think the FORM of the ID/Evolution discussion in science classroom should be one of science/not-science, the CONTENT of the debate (amongst extreme partisans, at least) is the existence of God. Here is a good opportunity to discuss the limits of the the scientific method. As I said above, science doesn't allow you to prove a theory true... it is a paradigm that sets rational, empirical critera for proving theories false. Are there questions that aren't best addressed rationally or empirically? Certainly. Philosophy, ethics, and religion, among others. I'm not one that believes that science is all-powerful.
To that end, the people who would use evolutionary theory to disprove the existence of God don't understand the limits of science any more than those who think that ID is a way to prove that God exists. This would seem to be an argument in favor of better science education all around. NMD, at October 12, 2005 2:26 PM
-
thanks jenny d, leigh, and nicole for your comments. i guess i should clarify a few things. 1) i don't think that anyone is stupid. I also have no problem agreeing to disagree with someone's opinions. i respect one's right to religion and to believe what they want about the creation or origin of the human race. I do however, have a problem when someone tries to put their beliefs into a scientific theory that's impossible to prove. I would much rather have an honest discussion about religious beliefs and values and how they can co-exist with science 2) i realize there is no absolute's when it comes to evolution. i, like nicole, agree that we shouldn't try to ncessarily convince students of darwin's theories, but use it to demonstrate deductive scientific reasoning. 3) my main concerns are still what i listed in my post, which deal more with intelligent design. I am more concerned with the misinformation and signals that are being given to our students and public than anything else. the media's ability to slant opinons and the fact that many people are calling intelligent design a scientific theory when it's not, skews the information so that the public cannot make fair decisions. that is my biggest concern.
By KF, at October 12, 2005 3:54 PM
<< Home
from: :: permalink
