![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Why the odds are stacked against evolutionists
Monday, February 7th, 2005 04:52 amIn the latest episode of America's slide into theocracy, Kansas is debating whether to teach intelligent design in biology classes. Intelligent design is the toned-down, scientific-sounding version of creationism: rather than making wild claims about God creating the world in six days, six thousand years ago, it merely proposes that some kind of intelligence (read "God") is at work behind evolution. I have nothing against this as a philosophical position; the problem is that it is philosophy, not biology, and should not be taught in a biology class.
Advocates of intelligent design argue that evolution is "just a theory", so students should be exposed to other theories. Here they play on ignorance of what the word "theory" involves. Yes, evolution is a theory and so is intelligent design; the difference is that evolution is a well-established scientific theory, and the criteria for acceptance as a scientific theory are a lot stricter than the kind of theories you or I think up in the bath. Intelligent design is an interesting theory, but scientific it ain't, since there is no way that we can possibly put this theory to the test. As such, it belongs in a philosophy or theology class, not in the biology lab.
This illustrates why the odds are stacked against evolutionists*, and against scientists in general. In order to appreciate the reasons why, say, evolution is accepted and creationism isn't, you need a minimum of scientific knowledge, such as what exactly constitutes a theory. The lack of such knowledge was vividly demonstrated in the Kansas public hearings. One gentleman asked "I have a question: if man comes from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? Why do you waste time teaching something in science class that is not scientific?" Ignoring the fact that humans don't come from modern monkeys but from a common primate ancestor, an elementary knowledge of evolution is enough to explain why one species can evolve from another without the original species becoming extinct.
This is the problem. The theory of evolution is almost universally accepted in scientific circles because it fits the facts better than any other theory - not just a bit better, but by such a wide margin that there is no serious competition. However, to appreciate this, you need to have some knowledge of the kind of facts it is explaining - not a PhD in biology, just the kind of thing that ought to be taught in schools. Creationists usually lack this knowledge, and will not bother to acquire it, because they already have a theory that fits the facts (or pseudo-facts) that they are aware of.
* I actually feel a little uncomfortable about the word "evolutionist" - after all, we don't call people who believe that the Earth orbits the Sun "heliocentrists" - but I can't think of a better word offhand.
Advocates of intelligent design argue that evolution is "just a theory", so students should be exposed to other theories. Here they play on ignorance of what the word "theory" involves. Yes, evolution is a theory and so is intelligent design; the difference is that evolution is a well-established scientific theory, and the criteria for acceptance as a scientific theory are a lot stricter than the kind of theories you or I think up in the bath. Intelligent design is an interesting theory, but scientific it ain't, since there is no way that we can possibly put this theory to the test. As such, it belongs in a philosophy or theology class, not in the biology lab.
This illustrates why the odds are stacked against evolutionists*, and against scientists in general. In order to appreciate the reasons why, say, evolution is accepted and creationism isn't, you need a minimum of scientific knowledge, such as what exactly constitutes a theory. The lack of such knowledge was vividly demonstrated in the Kansas public hearings. One gentleman asked "I have a question: if man comes from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? Why do you waste time teaching something in science class that is not scientific?" Ignoring the fact that humans don't come from modern monkeys but from a common primate ancestor, an elementary knowledge of evolution is enough to explain why one species can evolve from another without the original species becoming extinct.
This is the problem. The theory of evolution is almost universally accepted in scientific circles because it fits the facts better than any other theory - not just a bit better, but by such a wide margin that there is no serious competition. However, to appreciate this, you need to have some knowledge of the kind of facts it is explaining - not a PhD in biology, just the kind of thing that ought to be taught in schools. Creationists usually lack this knowledge, and will not bother to acquire it, because they already have a theory that fits the facts (or pseudo-facts) that they are aware of.
* I actually feel a little uncomfortable about the word "evolutionist" - after all, we don't call people who believe that the Earth orbits the Sun "heliocentrists" - but I can't think of a better word offhand.
