The way I learned things years ago, science was a subject that dealt with how things are and how they behave—in the present. You know, following the “scientific method” to learn the truth about nature, etc.: observe phenomenon, formulate hypothesis, devise and execute experiment, analyze data, predict future outcome, verify or revise hypothesis …. (Did I get it right?)
But when you begin to ask “where did things come from, what were things like before what we are able to observe today, how did they come into existence?” you have crossed over the line into the realm of philosophy or metaphysics. At that point you are embarking on a journey of speculation about things that cannot be observed or tested. Strictly speaking, this is no longer science.
Of course, that is not to say that things couldn’t have happened as you speculate, only that we cannot observe or test today something that might only have happened in the dark and distant past. We may, for example, find dinosaur bones in Montana, study them in any number of ways and, perhaps, notice structural similarities between them and the bones of certain other species alive today. But one cannot, as a result of this seeming similarity, then declare as fact that certain species of dinosaurs “evolved” into certain species of birds (for example), or fish into lizards, (or even fish species A into fish species B) unless we can actually observe the evolutionary transformation process (or event). So a scientist is perfectly free to say that, in his opinion, evolution might have occurred, but he cannot say that it actually did occur, because such a claim cannot be observed or tested in any way. (The same goes for the “Creationist,” needless to say.)
To the best of my knowledge (which I admit is quite limited) no one has ever yet observed such an evolutionary transformation. The assumption or postulate, therefore, is simply made by those who embrace evolution that these things are so similar in structure or apparent function that they must have evolved from one into the other. Well, cars are similar too. Is it therefore reasonable to assume that the Ford Taurus evolved from the Nash Rambler? Of course not, you say. That’s silly! Cars don’t reproduce themselves. They are engineered and manufactured. Even if I am not an engineer or assembly mechanic, I can observe (if given the opportunity) and understand the whole process step-by-step. OK. I’ll buy that. Cars aren’t living things but mechanical contrivances and do not reproduce themselves biologically because biology is not involved.
The unspoken assumption of the evolution theorists, of course, that there is no Creator-God who could have made (engineered and manufactured) the two (unrelated) species separately but designed them with similar anatomical structures. So the “theory” of evolution (whichever of the many “theories” you may prefer) is based fundamentally on the worldview of atheism.
Of course, this atheistic claim cannot be proven, and no one who is smart enough to land a career as a professional scientist would be fool enough to attempt it. So the whole atheism thing is quietly swept under the rug and studiously avoided. Which is fine, I suppose. But then those who do so shouldn’t get their shorts all in a bunch if some other scientist trips over the lump under the rug and decides to take a look. After all, free inquiry and investigation is what science is all about, right? Haul things out into the light of day and examine them to see if we can make any sense out of them.
So. What is the rational answer to this “debate”? Should (macro)evolution be taught in science classes? No, certainly not.
Should intelligent design be taught in science classes instead? Again, the answer is no.
“Say WHAT!?”
Consider it this way. Scientist A is free to make the philosophical statement, and give his reasons, that he thinks macroevolution actually occurred, although he can’t demonstrate it scientifically. But scientist B should also be free to make his own philosophical statement that he thinks macroevolution is an untenable proposition and that, in his opinion, it is much more likely (and give his reasons) that the universe (or some part of it) was designed by some intelligent principle or being (perhaps what some people choose to call “God”), while still admitting that he can’t demonstrate that scientifically either.
Since neither statement can be either proved or disproved scientifically, neither should be written into the curricula of science classes (especially for primary and secondary schools), unless it is also emphasized that such a position is strictly one of opinion and not a scientific fact. This seems to me the only reasonable solution to the situation.
Go ahead and discuss the issue all you like in a philosophy course, but not in science class, and certainly not as a required element of “basic” education. Teach the students in science class about observable scientific facts and instruct them in the scientific method, and let them learn about how things really are by their careful application of its principles. But the question “where did we (ultimately) come from?” ought to be left to the philosophers and theologians to work out according to the established principles of those disciplines.
No comments:
Post a Comment