Dear Bob,
I have a lot of thoughts on the subject, though perhaps I don't have time
to write them all down now. Let me begin by saying that there are both
"popular" and "scholarly" responses to everything you wrote. Some 90% of
American scientists I speak with hold to your views, which I attribute the
marvelous public education system we have in this country. Far fewer hold
to these views in Europe, and even fewer in countries like Japan or India.
This is because the "meta-physics" which defines the boundaries of science
and religion is completely different in other countries. It is different
in Europe simply because John Dewey's pragmatism never caught on so
strongly in Europe as it has in America, and especially American
education.
Just because a view is popular, and is held by a majority of people,
does not make it right. Democracy is founded on "unassailable principles"
of equality that refuse to be taken to a vote. Despite standing in a
minority of scientists, I do not think it wise to reinforce this American
cultural bias of pushing naive realism and positivism as the appropriate
metaphysical underpinning of modern science.
Creationism is bad science.
I will agree totally with you there. But
whether intentional or not (and I do not attribute to creationists any
more philosophical sophistication than my scientific colleagues),
their argument is reductio ad absurdem. They take the same
philosophical arguments as Dewey and apply them to the Bible, arriving
at a hodge-podge "system" they call creation science. Rather than
disparaging their logic, one should learn from their imitation of
evolutionary theory that the Emperor has no clothes. Evolutionary
theory does not meet the criteria of inductive science. It too has
its
tautologies, solipsisms and "unassailable principles" that refuse to
be scrutinized by science. If you don't believe me, please read the
Behe and Johnson
references in my previous e-mail.
My response to creationism would be to desist teaching evolution as a
theory. This does not mean we can't talk about Mendelian genetics and
mutations of DNA. It does mean we stop saying that human beings evolved
from protoplasmic stuff by the action of blind chance. If you cannot see
the difference between those last two sentences, then you have been duped
by your education into blurring science and faith.
The "ways of knowing" are probably equivalent to what philosophers term
Epistemology. There is a long history of thought on the subject, from
Aristotle, Bacon, David Hume, Immanual Kant, up to Karl Popper today. One
should not be suspicious of others just for questioning the approach we
take to knowledge. If physicists are suspicious, it is often because they
naively suppose that "observations" occur in a vacuum and represent "raw
facts". The number of wavelengths of sodium D-line light occuring in a
meter, for example, would be the sort of fact a physicist might suppose is
unassailable. After a discussion of measurement, a physicist should add a
+/- indicating the certainty with which he believes this. Then a
discussion with a cosmologist might convince him that Hubble's constant
plays a part in his uncertainty so that one should add a caveat about flat
space time. A discussion of relativity might suggest an uncertainty
whether he is measuring time or space, and the errors introduced in an
accelerated reference frame. And by the time the possibility of tachyons,
worm-holes and cosmic strings are discussed, this number seems far less
simple than originally envisioned. Naive realism just doesn't hold up well
to modern science. Milic Capek, a philosopher of science at BU, has
written a number of very good books on the revolutionary impact of
relativity and quantum mechanics on our simple Newtonian naive realism.
You mention that we need to be teaching not just a fact but a
methodology of science to our students. Again, ever since Thomas Kuhn,
sociologists have been having a field day with our self-expressed naive
view that science proceeds by the direct application of the scientific
method. Let's face it, none of us do science that way. We say we do, we
teach the method, but if you have ever tried to get a new theory published
in a conservative community, you know what the scientific method and 50
cents will buy you. Why then do we insist on teaching our children these
convenient lies? Because they reinforce a metaphysics of naive realism and
positivism.
My conclusion, and you are free to disagree, is that what we are teaching
in our schools is far more about meta-physics than it is about science, it
is far more about positivism as religion than it is about theories of
evolution. Since evolution as religion makes claims counter to
Christianity, it is this conflict that has creationists in an uproar. The
solution is very, very simple: stop teaching alternative religions under
the guise of science. If this solution is resisted, as it has been in the
past, I can only assume that covert religious instruction is central to
the agenda of most educators. When one reads the original writings of John
Dewey and his followers, one finds that he is far from covert in his
declaration of war on Christianity. Hence the counter-offensive from
creationism.
It is a culture war that we are observing at the bitter end of the 20th
century. Whether AGU should choose sides in it is perhaps best left to a
semi-democratic vote. However I believe it would be detrimental to the
organization and our culture if AGU embroiled itself in a debate far from
its central purpose. Nor could I in good conscience belong to a voluntary
society that required contradictory religious beliefs of its members.
Sincerely,
Dr. Robert Sheldon
P.S. I have spent far more time talking about science than about religion.
No agnostic or atheist should have to describe how "Truth" operates in
religion, just as you would not want a creationist to teach the theory of
evolution. It is no less complicated in theology than it is in science,
perhaps more so. Creationists for the most part are as naive about
theology as scientists are naive about metaphysics. American pragmatism
has affected churches as profoundly as it has affected schools. The
science of interpreting the bible, often called Hermeneutics, would rarely
agree with creationists in their bible exposition of a 10,000 year old
earth. Therefore creationism is as bad theology as it is bad science.
Nonetheless, the debate is not about practice, the debate is about
principle. The principle which creationists debate, is whether any
religion has a preferential position in our public schools.
yours Truly,
Rob Sheldon
TOP
Comments? E-mail r*bs@rbsp.info
Due to spamming, delete asterisk.