Today marks the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin. This weekend is Evolution Weekend. Many churches will be engaged in discussions of faith and science. The campus is hosting two highly respected local clergy to discuss the compatibility of science and religious belief.
While I serve as a campus administrator most know that my undergraduate and doctoral degrees are in the biological sciences. So I have more than a passing interest in science education. And evolutionary science.
As someone who sees education as a means to ensure economic and social vitality, I become dismayed and disheartened when even those who have college educations reject evolutionary science in favor of belief in a deity that created life in its present forms. I fail to understand why those who believe in a deity cannot at least accept that perhaps this deity “created evolution.” Even the Vatican accepts evolutionary science, and the fact that life on Earth has evolved from simple, one-celled organisms. So I am dumbfounded when I read stories that so much of United States society rejects evolution in favor of creation. I suspect it’s because people need to think – to believe -- they are alive for a reason, that they have a higher purpose in life.
As a scientist one cannot cherry pick which scientific principles to accept and reject. So the general public’s acceptance of science that benefits them (such as the understanding germ theory, how microbes evolve in response to antibiotics, the ability of viruses to mutate and other advances in medical science) yet rejecting all the evidence that humans share a common ancestor with other primates is just plain unfathomable to me.
My personal beliefs aside, I worry about a society that rejects the fundamental tenet of the biological sciences, puts more stake in belief systems than evidence. I try to think logically. Seems to me that a lot of the world’s woes are based on the absence of respecting the unity and diversity of life, thinking humans are better than other forms of life, and beyond, that one’s personal religious belief system if worth literal warfare. Is science education failing us?
Happy Birthday Charles Darwin.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
Good points. Maybe we can blame science education but in the minds of some science and fiction have merged and they don't know the difference. Richard Dawkins points out in "Heat the Hornet" that when teachers compared notes: "One teacher reported that students “burst into tears” when told they would be studying evolution. Another teacher described how students repeatedly screamed, “No!” when he began talking about evolution in class." Where does this come from? From parents?
Dawkins suggests in The God Delusion that parents need to provide a framework for belief in something to their children. It is when belief replaces reason that truth is obscured. In a video age where levitation is equally "believable" to gravity, we can lose our way. Perhaps ignorance prevails--it is easier and simpler at times. Strength of intellect, good thinking and thoughfulness should be rewarded in our society. Are these our values?
As educators we may still be able to make a difference if we keep trying. Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True" (Oxford Univ Press, 2009) should be read by every college freshman.
Nice lecture series "Growing Up in the Universe" http://richarddawkins.net/article,3586,Growing-Up-in-the-Universe---Now-on-YouTube,Richard-Dawkins-RichardDawkinsnet
D. Blankenship
If Dean Blankenship were a student of mine I'd fail him for plagiarism. The first paragraph of his post is taken from a Times Literary Supplement's review.
And of course "belief" can never be supported hy "reason." "Strength of intellect, good thinking and thoughtfulness" make an atheist, or at least a good academic liberal. We all know that. Right?
I just did a search myself and found the original article quoted by D. Blankenship. He cited the source, attributed the author, and quoted the text. So I am wondering what the accusation was from the previous anonymous post?
Whoever did this very long post should indicate the source, because it is quite obvious that the person making the post did not do the research to come up with all of that, and is relying on an organization with a political viewpoint. Who's going to read somethign this long anyway?
And, by the way, the Weis Earth Science Museum celebrated both Darwin's and Lincoln's birthday yesterday.
The content of the previously post (now deleted) can be found at The Racism of Charles Darwin.
[snip]
"Beginning of 1st chapter
-proposing the idea that there are variants of man
"He who wishes to decide whether man is the modified descendant of some pre-existing form, would probably first enquire whether man varies, however slightly, in bodily structure and in mental faculties; and if so, whether the variations are transmitted to his offspring in accordance with the laws which prevail with the lower animals." [snip]
So that long post was PLAGARIZED?
When the long post was deleted its introduction was deleted too. It said that UWFox chose to honor Darwin's birthday not Lincoln's. No matter what any unit, like the Weiss museum, chose to do, UWFox had no official celebration of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln. It chose to mark the birthday of Charles Darwin. Go figure.
The author of the long post cited the author of the section on Darwin's writings so how was it plagarized? That post was, by the way, posted by someone who does not concur with it's contents but who posted another person's entire message because they were unable to post on this blog but had hoped to generate some discussion.
"It said that UWFox chose to honor Darwin's birthday not Lincoln's."
If you had gone to the Earth Wies Museum, I believe there was a Lincoln Birthday cake as well. Sure we didn't center on Lincolns accomplishments, but that's because this University is a little more orientated in the Sciences then in Poli-Sci or History.
Also, I don't believe it's the Education systems fault that such a vast amount of people choose to ignore evolution as a way for life to have developed to it's present state. The information is there and presented to them, but they refuse to even accept it as a possibility. The old saying, "Ignorance is Bliss", still holds true in their reasoning. Why face the reality that you are NOT the center of the universe when you can create a reason why you are by holding to tired and unproven doctrine. The education system is not holding back the teaching of evolution or any other science, it's people holding back themselves from the pursuit of knowledge so they can feel safe in their ignorance.
I feel like I have to add this last point, people embrace intelligent design so they feel there is a greater reasoning to their exsistance, that predestination and creation from a guiding hand gives them their purpose. Shouldn't the joy and experience of life be forging our own purpose? Deciding our own path? If there is a god, or gods, or possibly even nothing, shouldn't we embrace what we can do here, and now? Couldn't the great plan be... that there is no plan?
Science education is not failing: it should provide information, not dictate religious beliefs.
You suspect people worship a creator God because they are ignorant or insecure. That is not a very respectful way to characterize the population of Muslims, Jews, Catholics, and Christians under your care at UWFOX who do not incorporate evolution as part of their religious doctrine. Perhaps there is a less judgmental alternative: perhaps people worship--or choose not to worship--because they enjoy the freedom of conscience to make religious decisions on their own. So they do.
We do not yet live in a country that provides for us an approved and enforced religious sentiment regarding the origin of life. Let's keep it that way. It promotes diversity.
JDB
I don't believe anyone at UW Fox would want to have people incorporate evolution as part of a RELIGIOUS doctrine at all.
I hope you are right, Anonymous 2/16, 5:04 PM. It appears to be the main point offered here:
JP:(text omitted) “I become dismayed and disheartened when even those who have college educations reject evolutionary science in favor of belief in a deity that created life in its present forms. I fail to understand why those who believe in a deity cannot at least accept that perhaps this deity “created evolution.” Even the Vatican accepts evolutionary science, and the fact that life on Earth has evolved from simple, one-celled organisms. So I am dumbfounded when I read stories that so much of United States society rejects evolution in favor of creation.”
Would JP suggest that college-educated people ought to “at least accept that perhaps this deity ‘created evolution’”? If so, he would be suggesting a change in their religious teachings, or doctrines. He adds, “Even the Vatican accepts evolutionary science….” What does that mean? In context, it seems to mean that the Vatican’s religious doctrines (teachings) are more acceptable religious doctrines, better religious doctrines, than a doctrine that “rejects evolution in favor of creation.”
No, I think JP is arguing that religious teachings (doctrines) that are compatible with evolutionary science are superior. And I feel confident that he is not alone in holding that view.
JDB
Hi everyone,
Apparently there is a great deal of confusion as to what evolution is and isn't (as I explained in my Heredity class and a student commented that they didn't hear this explanation at the Barlow presentation). Evolution is a biological explanation as to how living things change over generations. Note that biology is a science. Science deals with the study of nature and how it works (looking at data, constructing hypotheses, making predictions, etc...). Intelligent design/creationism deals with a supernatural "creator". The term supernatural indicates that it is "above nature", or out of the realm of what science deals with. Therefore, they don't really have anything to do with one another. We don't teach alchemy in chemistry classes (except as an example of it not being science), we don't teach astrology in an astronomy class (except as an example of how it isn't science), and we shouldn't ever teach intelligent design in a biology class (except as an example of how it isn't science). I urge everyone to please understand both sides of what they are discussing before trying to make a point one way or the other. If anyone would like more explanation, my door is open and I welcome questions (just ask my students!). Smile and enjoy learning more about what science is all about (and what it isn't!)!
Dubear Kroening
UW-Fox Biology
dubear.kroening@uwc.edu
GO HEREDITY!!!
I like your second to last sentence. One of my favorite quotes on conservation is from The Great Wilderness Debate:
"The fundamental challenge is not to conserve the wilderness, but to tame the myth with an understanding that humans are not apart from nature."
It works on so many levels
I think a major problem of religion in general is that it is based on quantifying the value of one form of life over others.
Also (but aside from your Darwinian discussion), notice that nature is everywhere - on campus and in your back yard, not just High Cliff or Yosemite Valley.
Peace
Post a Comment