About
Academics
Multisport
Photography
Writing
Home

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

www.adamhodges.com

Wednesday, May 11, 2005

The Politics of Evolution

Religion and Science Education: The Politics of Evolution

Religion has always been an important aspect of American society, and anyone who lives in the United Stated today cannot avoid the impact of religion on public life, from presidential politics to public service programs to educational standards. Taking center stage in many school districts across the country is a renewed controversy over the teaching of evolution in public schools. While this controversy has erupted in a way that has pitted religion versus science, it provides a false choice in ways of knowing. Resolution of the supposed tension between science and religion does not lie in battling for a replacement of one over the other, but in recognizing the ways both operate in their own domains to give us useful understandings of the modern world. A solid understanding of the scientific method and evolutionary theory are important aspects of a strong science education, and religious fundamentalists opposed to the teaching of evolution might just consider that a strong science education is an important complement to a solid foundation in the theological teachings of their religion.

Parallel Systems of Knowing on a Collision Course?

The history of the West and modernity has been marked by a parallel existence of two ways of knowing: science and religion. Each involves different ways of approaching the world that are not necessarily in conflict.

Science, on the one hand, uses the ‘scientific method’, a systematic procedure for formulating principles and rules devised to analyze, predict, and explain phenomena in the natural world. The results of the scientific method lead to theories: organized systems of knowledge that guide understanding and further inquiry. Theories are beliefs that are open to empirical verification and reformulation. Theories provide a framework of rules and proven principles to analyze, predict and explain. The scientific method is an ongoing process of testing that leads to verification, modification and refutation.

Religion, on the other hand, is a system of knowing that rests on faith. Some matters are simply not open to empirical verification, or testing via a ‘scientific method.’ This is the domain of faith, where we may ‘know’ something without being able to ‘prove’ it. Questions of faith are not open to proof through systematic experiments like scientific questions are, yet faith provides important guidance in the way we interact in the world.

Neither way of knowing is inherently better than the other; we rely on both in our everyday lives. Scientific theories are foundational to many aspects of our technological society. From building skyscrapers to flying airplanes to breeding crops, theories provide tested principles that guide our actions. Yet some aspects of life are simply untestable in scientific terms. Spiritual knowledge and a connection felt with a higher being is the domain of faith. We can be certain we know such things, but cannot prove them scientifically. Religion helps us organize these beliefs and provides guidance for actions in our everyday lives.

Science and religion need not be seen as mutually exclusive. In fact, many thinkers of the Enlightenment and scientists of modernity have invoked faith in God as a motivation for engaging in science. A religious Isaac Newton discovered the law of gravity, and Albert Einstein invoked the sentiment of many such thinkers in seeing science as a means for understanding God's handiwork in the universe. Einstein’s theory of relativity has opened up the possibility for space travel and led to more detailed observations of the stars. Electromagnetic theory has provided us with electricity and all it entails, including lights, television, computers and email. And the theory of evolution has provided the foundation for modern biological sciences.

Evolution and Science Education

The theory of evolution is most notably associated with Charles Darwin, who first articulated his ideas on natural selection in the mid 19th century after observing the biological diversity of the Galapagos Islands. The 21st century theory of evolution has evolved in its own right, and provides a much deeper understanding of biological change. The theory of evolution continues to pave the way for advances in micro-biology, ecology, and medical research. The theory of evolution is to the biologist what electromagnetic theory is to the electrician. Yet the chasm between the scientific theory of evolution and popular understandings is growing wider even as the theory becomes more central to professional research, even more reason why a strong science curriculum should include coverage of the ideas.

Yet many school districts are shying away from the treatment of evolution in response to opposition from religious fundamentalists. A school district in Georgia, for example, placed warning stickers on their high school biology books stating, “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.” A court case ensued and a judge later had the stickers removed, but similar battles are under way in a growing number of states.

In a single sentence, the stickers on the Georgia textbooks confound an understanding of the scientific method and theories—not to mention the complexity of evolution. Evolution, contrary to what is implied on the stickers, is not merely an opinion, but a theory based on evidence, i.e. ‘facts’, open to ongoing investigation that can lead to modification or refutation. Scientific theories, like the theory of evolution, become accepted (and placed in textbooks) because they have explanatory power for describing and understanding the world. Theories are accepted because of their ability to predict and explain. This does not mean the theory of evolution represents a definitive explanation of life—but nor is it opinion. Science, rather than making final claims of absolute knowledge, is always open to testing—it requires it. As new empirical evidence is found, theories are modified. If a theory no longer adequately explains something and a better theory does, then the old theory becomes supplanted. This is part of the ‘way of knowing’ marked by the scientific method.

Science education is about understanding and being able to use the scientific method. It is also about gaining a grounding in the major theories in the natural sciences, from physics to chemistry to biology, in order to engage with them in further scientific inquiry. The theory of evolution provides an important basis for modern biological research. It informs research and applications being carried out in agriculture, medicine, molecular biology and ecology. Scientific theories in all areas of inquiry need rigorous minds working to improve their explanatory power. But before one can test, modify or refute a theory, one must first understand it. Understanding need not entail belief, but rather an ability to engage with a theory on its own terms. It involves ‘doing science’ via the scientific method.

‘Doing Science’ in the Courts?

Scientists use the scientific method as they conduct research in the laboratory and field. Results are presented at conferences and published in peer reviewed journals. Inaccurate results are weeded out, and repeatable, verifiable results inform understanding. As a whole, the process of ‘doing science’ contains checks and balances that provide tried and tested results. The results of scientific inquiry lead to accepted theories because they have been tried and tested. An accepted theory, such as evolution, provides the best current explanation of the natural world, not the definitive explanation. Newer theories must enter into the scientific process on these terms—they must eventually prove their merit via the way of knowing marked by the scientific method rather than terms of faith.

Yet the controversy over evolution fueled by religious fundamentalists in the US has shifted science and religion from parallel ways of knowing to a collision course. The distinction between science and religion has become blurred and fundamentalists have pitted the two as an either-or choice at best and a false analogy between atheism and God at worst.

A consequence of this putative collision between science and religion is now moving science from the lab into the political arena. The Kansas State Board of Education, for example, held three days of hearings in early May to decide on a new set of science standards. Kansas is known for its 1999 decision to teach the Genesis creation story as an alternative to evolution, which was eventually overturned in 2001. Now in 2005, hearings have brought in ‘experts’ to testify to the merits of ‘intelligent design.’

According to the website of the Intelligent Design Network, an organization in Shawnee Mission, Kansas, “The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection."

Many scientists and critics of ID contend that it is ‘pseudo-science.’ The fundamental basis of ID—that life was ‘designed’ by an intelligent being, such as God—is not an empirical question open to scientific verification. In other words, it is a matter of faith, not science.

Advocates of ID and religious fundamentalists opposed to evolution point to ‘controversy’ in modern biology over aspects of the theory as a reason why evolution should be given less weight in the curriculum and ideas such as ID should be introduced. The ‘controversy’ they point to, of course, is simply scientists ‘doing science.’ Science requires ongoing questioning and testing, i.e. ‘controversy’; yet this does not preclude one theory from being widely accepted as the best current explanation. Evolution, like electromagnetic theory, the theory of relativity and other ‘controversial’ theories in the natural sciences, are widely accepted because they have withstood testing and they consequently form important underpinnings of modern science. If an alternative theory were to hold up to scientific scrutiny and arrive at a point where it provides better explanatory power than evolution, then it might supplant evolution as an accepted theory favored by scientists—a process that could only occur by ‘doing science’ in the lab and field rather than with lawyers, testimonials and hearings.

Questions Facing American Society

At issue in the so-called culture wars that falsely pit science against one brand of religion are questions at the heart of our educational standards. In order to thrive in a technological age, we need to provide students with a solid science education.

Shouldn’t that education be informed by scientists engaged in scientific research and taught by science teachers trained in their fields?

True scientific theories cannot be mandated by hearings. Theories can only be worked out through the sometimes mundane and sometimes exciting work of scientific inquiry, a process based on questions of empirical study. It is important that everyone understands the way science works along with the major theories in the different fields, just as it is important to understand that not all questions and issues can be addressed by science. Faith, as a way of knowing, is equally valid and useful for those issues that fall beyond the pale of science. It is not an either-or option, but one of recognizing where the different domains lie. Blurring the two is not only detrimental for science and public education, but forces religion into a quandary of trying to legitimize matters of faith via scientific evidence. Yet, faith needs no proof, just as scientific explanations demand it.

Links:

- Adam