Ring the bell! Chad and I agree on something again. Well, mostly. Here is Chad's most recent post, as I write.
Catch this logic from an anonymous commentor on a post over at the War College:
pay attention here. The THEORY of evolution is being taught as FACT in most South Dakota schools.
A theory is just that, a theory, and as such it cannot be proven and should not be taught as if it could.
Creation can't be proven either, but using the same criteria, it should be taught as fact right along side evolution.
Fair is fair. How would you like that?
I'm always curious to know if people who "don't believe in evolution" (including our own Senator John Thune) have actually had a class in the subject beyond high school biology.
And this whole "theory" thing as an argument is total bunk. Theories are proven and disproven. Evolution has been proven through the fossil record. It is fact. It is universally accepted by the scientific community.
How about the "theory" of relativity? Or the "theory" of gravity? Are these "just theories?"
Jeebus H. It doesn't seem like you should have to explain this stuff to adults.
Anyone who has read my posts and columns on this subject (assuming some hominid meets that description) knows that I believe in the theory of evolution. I therefore agree with Chad on his main point: to say that we shouldn't teach evolution because it is an unproven theory would, in principle, wipe out the teaching of science. Darwinian evolution is no more nor less a proven theory than the molecular theory of heat.
On the same grounds I must dissent from Chad's statement that "Evolution has been proven through the fossil record." Scientific theories are not in fact conclusions to prove or disprove; they are working models that either work or don't. Evolution works. Modern biology cannot be correctly interpreted without it.
I do not think Chad is correct that evolution has "universal" acceptance among scientists. From time to time individuals with impeccable credentials challenge it. One example is the cladists, who argued all we really know is that various species are related to one another in various ways, and that the theory of common descent adds nothing to our knowledge. The dissidents have never made their case, but then I am fonder of dissent than Chad is. But again, that doesn't detract from Chad's main point, which is sound.
I do think that Chad's "look at the idiots" approach to political rhetoric is profoundly damaging in this issue. To be sure, we have to firmly insist on the teaching of science in science classes. But in dealing with opposition I have found, as Lincoln put it, that an ounce of honey catches more flies than a pound of gall. I have lectured on evolution before Methodists, and I found that when you acknowledge their concerns, they are usually ready to listen. I argue that Darwin's theory poses challenges to the Biblical story in some regards, but confirms that story in other ways. I think the Judeo-Christian tradition is big enough to deal with the challenge.
Unfortunately, many people of faith have been convinced that anyone who accepts the theory necessarily thinks that believers are idiots. This view, that evolutionary theory and Darwinists are enemies of religion, underlies the opposition to the teaching of evolution. It doesn't help to treat everyone who dissents from the theory as an idiot. But reconciliation here is probably not possible. The two sides enjoy attacking each other too much.
ps. I couldn't find the comment at South Dakota War College that Chad quotes. What is presented above relies entirely on CCK's accuracy.
Recent Comments