Scientists Expelling Science

There is a lot of hoopla right now in the evolution and creation camps over the movie, Expelled. This is a case where Hollywood could make a comparatively low-budget movie and potentially capitalize on the volatile Creation-Evolution controversy. Wikipedia says that the movie had a budget of $3.5 million and Yahoo! movies shows that it has grossed $5.3 million so far. Wikipedia and expelledexposed.com both cite the many scientific inaccuracies and deceitful nature of the interviews presented in the movie, which are the subject of most of the blog postings. This post is a bit different.

I am an advocate of ID in schools, not as science, but as a religion or philosophy course. Now, as Dr. Francisco Ayala notes, "We don't teach alchemy along with chemistry. We don't teach witchcraft along with medicine. We don't teach astrology with astronomy." Why do I say that ID should be discussed (notice I did not say "taught") in schools? Because it is the culture of most students. (See also Where there's smoke).

To ignore that culture is irresponsible and disrespectful. It makes scientific teaching pompous and preachy. Scientists frequently say that this has nothing to do with religion and that all they are doing is presenting the data. This "just the facts, ma'am" teaching of science is where we are failing to teach students what science is really about.

Science should be presented as what we know and how we know it, and even more crucially, how can we build a hypothesis, test it, and analyze the results accurately. I'm sure this is the objective of every science teacher. But what drives this hypothesis building? Curiosity. How can that be fostered?

In every scientific journal article, there is a Discussion section that repeats the objectives of the study with a summarization of the results. These new conclusions are placed in historical context and offer perspectives, interpretations, implications, and areas for more inquiry. It is in the Discussion section where active readers can agree or disagree with the report, but either way, more questions can be asked. In this way, Science perpetuates Science. Get rid of the Discussion section and you lose the relevance of the study and kill inquiry.

When science becomes just about presenting the facts, it becomes taxonomic. (This type of presentation, ironically, is the science that I was taught in a Christian, young earth creationism classroom where I was presented biology without evolution).

Science should be taught with that Discussion section -- that it has the ability to cure disease, elucidate behavior, explain the stars, and challenge philosophies. Maintaining a fear that ID in a philosophy course will be a toehold for it to creep into the science classroom loses the forest for the trees.

Paley's moral compass

As a follow-up to the Ecclesiastes book review post, it seems the construct for morality for Christians (or other religions) falls into Paley's watchmaker analogy. This is heard in Christianity as "But for the grace of God, there too go I". Christianity is rife with demeaning humanity as amoral and evil with the single exception of accepting Jesus as one's savior to both forgive transgressions and begin to live a more moral life as Jesus lives through him or her.

If this is true, then the Christian who believes in evolution has drawn a dangerous line. Obviously, behavior as well as physiology is under evolutionary pressures, but the religious moralist presumes high levels of morality can only be attained via divine providence. This is a dangerous line because behavior has a natural basis. As behavioral studies begin to show more genetic, cultural, and environmental forces at play, moral codes will also start to be teased out, and the Christian evolutionist will have to continually adjust his or her concept of the natural/supernatural boundary. (Check out this site for examples of biological altruism). The young earth creationist does not have this problem. They simply consider evolution bogus.

In short, this is another form of Intelligent Design, accepting the physiological components of evolution, but disregarding the behavioral as too complex to be completely natural.

I see two alternatives. 1) God is not necessary for morality or 2) God still uses evolution as His primary tool for mucking with the natural world.

Option 1 is easily accepted by atheists, but hard to swallow for the theist because it starts to beg the question "What good is God?"

Option 2 is something that I will be addressing in future posts as I read and become more familiar with proponents of this theory, including Richard Colling's Random Designer.

Where there's smoke: ID in Schools

Many Mapuche Indians of Chile live in or frequent thatched huts called rucas. (Image taken from http://www.cholchol.org). Mapuches are known for their strong resistance to Western culture and the fight to maintain their own. At the core of their culture is the ruca, where even if they do not live in the hut, Mapuches will likely have a hut next to their house where they tell stories, as much as possible in their native language, mapudungun. In the center of the dirt floor is a fire, and smoke is allowed to vent through a hole in the center of circular huts with a cone shaped roof, or out two vents as shown in the "A-frame" style.

Once while I was in Chile visiting a Mapuche family, I was sick with a cold. I was ushered out of the house and into the hut where I was told to breathe the smoke. This happened to me on another occasion when my allergies were flaring up.

It is not too crazy to think that smoke could be good for you. Obviously, fire was the source of warmth in the hut and the tool to cook food and kill off microbes in the water. So one could easily associate the smoke with all those healing things fire does and infer that the smoke itself was also a part of that.

But here's the issue: I've got scientific evidence that shows inhaling smoke over a campfire will exacerbate my illness. What is the responsible thing for me to do?

1. I can politely tell them that I'm drowsy and I should leave.
2. I can tell them I've got scientific evidence that goes against their beliefs.
   

Option number one is what an anthropologist (a scientist of culture) would do.

Option number two is difficult. Shouldn't I, in good conscience, for their health and the health of their children and their children's children, shouldn't I tell them to change their ways? As simple and basic as "don't breathe smoke" sounds to a Westerner, the gathering around the fire pit is central to the Mapuche. If you start telling them not to stand too close, you demean the mystique around fire.

I chose option 1. I was not about to get into it with a bunch of Mapuches.

For better or worse, Western culture -- MTV, gas guzzlers, medicine, this blog -- are accessible to the Mapuche. As they sit in their rucas, they also talk about what they saw on TV, and just like you and me sitting around a campfire, they squint their eyes and turn their heads when the smoke comes their way. Like all of us, they hold onto some traditions and incorporate others to make a new culture. This is a conscientious work in progress, performed formally and informally between groups of community leaders, families, and just kids. Many times there will not be agreement, but there is always discussion about what to hold dear balanced with what to assimilate.

I think it is naive of evolutionists to demand evolution to be taught in the classrooms without a debate on its ramifications. Yes, evolution is science and Intelligent Design (ID) is not, but you can't just tell a student "Your belief system is refuted by scientific evidence" and expect them to simply accept that.

My vote is that evolution should be taught in the science classroom and ID should not, but we need philosophy courses devoted to discussing the ramifications of any origin of life theory. Faith, by definition, is irrational. You will never get students to accept evolution when they are irrational. In this case, the science teacher will fail not only in teaching evolution, but can also turn students away from science itself.

Put ID along with other creation myths and evolutionary theory in the schools and let them duke it out in a philosophy course.