I blogged last night in response to a Doug Wiken post (Dakota Today) on evolution. In a nut shell I argued that students who have religious objections to evolution don't have to believe in the latter; all they have to do is be able to use the theory. I explained a provisional stance with respect to Darwinian theory that I sometimes offer such students. I wrote:
For those who do see a contradiction [between the Bible and Darwin] and therefore find evolution unpalatable, there is an alternative way of looking at it. It is that the Creator, like an auto designer, did not start from scratch when he produced Chimpanzee and Human prototypes. Rather, he modified a common blueprint.
Doug responded thoughtfully, and I take the liberty of reproducing some of his comment here.
Ken,
It appears your position on evolution is moderate compared to some of the theocrats in the GOP. Without going into detail, I tend to disagree that there is no danger in assuming that there is a grand designer running "micro evolution". This requires faith with no observable or testable possibility. That kind of faith is part of religion, but it is not part of science even though it is possible to find scientists who have such faith.
We are not really at odds here. My point was not that a faith in the designer can be used in interpreting biology. I agree that articles of faith cannot be used to generate a hypothesis, let alone a theory or a research program. Faith may be a greater or a lesser thing than science, depending on who you ask, but it is not science.
But if I am going to teach biopolitics and sociobiology, I have to find ways of making the theory assessable to all the students. Some persons of traditional faith have no trouble with Darwinism. In fact, I have found that Christians are often far more open minded about these questions than many Darwinists.
Other students, however, see their own Biblical faith and Darwinian theory to be mutually exclusive. The position I summarize above is intended to get around that problem at the outset, so we can then proceed to examine the arguments and evidence within the confines of scientific reasoning. I have to show them first and most importantly that I do not think they are stupid for believing what they believe. Many biologists go out of their way to give the opposite impression. Second, I try to show them that they don't have to believe anything to use evolution as a tool of analysis. Science is not about faith and belief, it is about propositions.
The other danger of the attitude in relation to schools and education relates to separation of church and state. Churches and religions have benefited greatly in the US because of the separation. Attempting to blur the lines in biology classes and require government intervention to force perspectives based on faith do damage both to education/government and also endanger religion and churches.
I certainly agree with Doug in general regarding the separation of Church and state. I'm for it. In the classroom, my sole responsibility is present the arguments and evidence. I am on record as opposing the teaching of Creation Science and Intelligent Design, though I believe the latter deserves some respect. But that doesn't mean that religiously motivated ideas can or should be banished from the classroom. The dialog (and frequently, the quarrel) between piety and philosophy, revelation and reason, has been turning the pistons of intellectual progress since well before Socrates was indicted. Both religion and science are stronger for it.
Let me suggest an example. A student will frequently say in Philosophy 100 or my Human Nature course that she believes in a literal reading of the Bible. I sometimes invite the student to consider the opening words of the Text.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Now, what does the word "spirit" here literally mean? If "literal" implies a very strict or narrow construction, the word spirit means breath (as in the word respiration). Does God really breathe? If you held his head under water (I wouldn't try that), would he drown? I don't think that Genesis intends this meaning any more than Blake (see above illustration) intends to say that God has boney knees. It turns out to be very difficult not to conclude that the word spirit is a metaphor, capturing the force of God's presence on whatever stuff preceded creation. I find this kind of analysis very engaging, and I find that my students usually do as well. It does sometimes make someone uncomfortable, but comfort is not what higher education is about.
I never tell my students what to believe. I do try to convert them. I would convert them to the practice of asking questions, proposing answers, and testing those answers in broad daylight.
Recent Comments