Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Science in the Classroom

Well, after 2 straight weeks of controversial subjects (homosexuality and pro-life rallies), I figured I'd take a break from blogging about another controversial subject.  But then I changed my mind because I'm in a bad mood and venting makes me feel better.

I'm becoming convinced that many of the problems that the church is facing in finding its place in our world today can be traced back to the public school system in America.  Now, before anyone gets bent out of shape, let me throw a disclaimer out here:  I am a product of the public school system, and I have a degree in Secondary Education, so I don't criticize my upbringing and professional degree lightly-- but I believe it's fair criticism.

I was debating my friend Lance the other day, and it occurred to me that most people still think that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is accepted by most members of the scientific community.  Did you know that's not true?  No one denies that Darwin was onto something, and with the limited knowledge he had, he was still able to accurately detect natural selection.  Most scientists accept this as the driving force behind current evolutionary trends, but it is not complete.  Yet most graduates believe that Darwin's original theory was correct-- But why?

The answer is simple.  Kids still learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution in school, even though it's not up to date by scientific standards.  If we're willing to teach kids something that we KNOW to be incorrect, why can't we teach kids something that we can't discern whether it's correct or not?  Our current theory of evolution falls under that umbrella... and emergent evolution... then again, so does Creationism... and so does the Mormon account of Creation... and Greek Mythology... really any mythology... Shinto as well... and if we're going to bring Shinto and Mormonism into the fray, we shouldn't exclude Buddhism or Hinduism either.  Really, where should that line get drawn?  I'm in favor of teaching kids all of those theories and belief systems in science classes in high school, or none of them.

"That's not a science class then," some of you might say... in fact, that's what Lance said to me.  My question is, "When did science, as we know it today, become so arrogant?"  What I described in the previous paragraph would have been science class if your name was Aristotle or Socrates, Ptolemy or Caesar, Newton or Galileo... but apparently it's not science class if your name is Hawking or Sagan.

When I ask science-supporters why Creation or Intelligent Design shouldn't be taught in the classroom, I get one consistent response: they don't fit the scientific method.  Now as I understand it, they're looking for observable, empirical evidence which can also be repeated so we can predict future results.  Creationism and Intelligent Design do neither of those.

But, then again, neither does Darwinian evolution. It is not observable in nature, it's not repeatable, and there are many holes in Darwin's original theory.  Current evolutionary theory does what it can to plug up those holes, but it can't be proven using the scientific method... it's still very hypothetical.  To me, that means it's no more reliable than smacking your hands together and saying, "It's MAGIC!"

But what about the other things that we learn in science classes that don't fit the scientific method?  Gravity comes to mind.  Newtonian physics largely apply on Earth, but we believe that the laws begin to collapse when dealing with subatomic particles, and also near the event horizon of a black hole.  We can't observe what happens in those instances, but we're content with saying "Well it works in most cases and explains almost everything... so it should be taught in schools."  But it isn't SCIENCE... at best it's belief.  We have NO IDEA why gravity exists, we only know that it does, and most of the time we can predict how it will work.  Until 10 years ago, we didn't even know that Gravity actually travels in waves.  We believe that acceleration due to gravity is constant, except when it isn't. It varies, not even between planets, but at various places on Earth itself.  But ask any student in a physics classroom "What is the accepted number for acceleration due to gravity on earth?" and they'll (hopefully) tell you, "9.8 meters per second per second."  We're taught that it's a constant, that it's observable, that it's repeatable, but it isn't!  We even have a pretty good idea why it changes, but we don't teach that in school because... I actually have no idea why.

If we're supposed to be teaching our kids science, based on the scientific method, we're doing a terrible job.  If we're allowed to teach our kids unreliable theories, why NOT also be allowed to teach Creationism, or at the very least, not mock it. What difference is there between "So you believe a god created everything that's around us?" and "So you believe that we got here because of an explosion that arose from nothing to create everything?"  Neither are observable, neither are repeatable, neither are empirical... yet one is the widely respected opinion and the other is lampooned as theological crazy talk, for no better reason than the established order says so.

I'm not the first who has arrived at this conclusion, and I'm sure I won't be the final one either.  The late Paul Feyerabend comes to mind when discussing this issue.  He went so far as to say that science should be separated from the state IN THE SAME WAY that church and state should be separated.
The way towards this aim is clear. A science that insists on possessing the only correct method and the only acceptable results is ideology and must be separated from the state, and especially from the process of education. One may teach it, but only to those who have decided to make this particular superstition their own. On the other hand, a science that has dropped such totalitarian pretensions is no longer independent and self-contained, and it can be taught in many different combinations (myth and modern cosmology might be one such combination).
Science and church getting equal treatment?  Sounds like a pipe dream... but to the rational observer, perhaps it doesn't sound so crazy after all.

EDIT: I've gotten too much heat about "Emergent evolution" to keep it in.  "Current leading evolutionary theory" or something to that effect replaces it.

9 comments:

  1. I'm impressed that you're familiar with Feyerabend, Adam. He's one of my 'favorite' philosophers of science. More investigations into science as a social enterprise can be found in Thomas Kuhn's _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions._

    At the foundation of science however, and of the scientific method itself, is that every theory is potentially unreliable. Making and adhering to absolute claims would represent anathema to a practitioner of 'science' in the purest sense of the term.

    However, as we consider science (the process) carried out today we find that its practitioners stake more than their knowledge of the world on their findings. Indeed, it is their reputations, their livelihoods that are up at the chopping block, hence such vehement denunciation of views incommensurate with one's own. Here we can take issue with how science is done in a practical sense, that success or failure in gaining funding depends on how much the reviewing body 'likes' your work, which in turn leads to dogmatism in regard to what are and in my opinion will remain fundamentally incomplete views on the universe.

    ReplyDelete
  2. But to me, that isn't science... it's faith. Would you agree Arjun?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Science is a faith-based enterprise, as is any human endeavor, for we are fundamentally limited in our capacity to perceive and conceive reality, this universe, however you choose to phrase it.

    I have no way of knowing if stepping on the next patch of floor will set me alight and burn me or lead to any number of hazardous effects, but I have faith that it will not.

    In order to confirm the verity of any observation we must repeat that observation ad infinitum, for we have no way of knowing whether the next observation's results will contradict those of the previous observation.

    Along those lines, whenever we conduct an experiment to test a hypothesis, in order to be certain of the results we again must repeat the experiment ad infinitum. Until then any conclusions we draw must invariably be taken on faith.

    In short, we are each physically limited by the degree to which we can make sense of this universe. The best we can do in the face of such mystery is to continue to live and in the process learn and relearn, while I would say the worst would be to hang our heads in defeat.

    History tends to demonstrate that we tend not to approach an absolute truth in our understanding of the universe, but new understandings continually unfold upon new experiences and sustained consideration of these experiences.

    Does this mean that we will never approach an absolute truth? Certainly not. All I say is that we shouldn't count on it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I appreciate your input Arjun... this post isn't meant to be something that should be peer-reviewed by scientists... more it's a criticism about the finite scope we allow science to take in public high schools. If science is supposed to be viewed as a process, then why do we just ask our kids to learn and spit out information. That's not science. It's knowledge. If we're looking to teach our kids knowledge, why not submit alternate theories?

    It all boils down to this double-standard that whatever the government says science should be is the way it actually is. I'm offended by this stance. I feel that more scientists should be.

    ReplyDelete
  5. We must ask then, "What is knowledge?"

    If knowledge is a collection of facts about the world and 'facts' continually change in light of new evidence, doesn't it then make sense to instead teach children a _process_ of learning with the hope that they will develop their own in turn?

    ReplyDelete
  6. There's a difference between incomplete and incorrect. Yes, he was incorrect about what causes variation within a species. But that is a distinct separation from his explanation that evolution is driven by natural selection - and that is what is taught in schools.

    And it is actually observable - it's just that the bigger the organism, the longer it's required to observe. microorganisms adaptations to overcome ever increasingly stronger antibiotics has been observed over the past 10-25 years - HIV adaptation, anyone? That's certainly been observed within my adult lifetime.. Two researchers at Michigan State have observed 35 generations of a fruit fly. "From a small stock of mated females they eventually produced two distinct fly populations adapted to different habitat conditions, which the researchers judged "incipient species." "

    http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/fulltext.html

    your criticism about education on gravity is puzzling. Are you criticizing how MUCH is taught at the high school level? 9.8 m/s2 does a damn good when it comes to determining the amount of reinforcement needed within a structure. I wouldn't worry too much about gravitational variance within a a house or even the tallest building. How much education do you expect the high schools to teach? 9.8 got me through quite a bit engineering classes. My other physics and chemistry classes DID deal with the other realms of gravity. Or are you saying since there is too much breadth of knowledge concerning gravity, why bother teaching it? Do you expect high school students to understand quarks? Organic Chemistry? Relative Physics? Knowledge is compounded on itself. OR, Since we've not been able to explain everything YET, why bother learning everything else that can be?

    Jeffrey

    ReplyDelete
  7. I once listened to a lecture by Kenneth Miller, a scientist who believes in God and evolution, and he showed quotes from Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins both saying, more or less, that the evidence of the universe points to no God (Dawkins) or yes God (Collins). Miller's point was that such conclusions move from science into philosophy/theology.

    We all, when we go to the doctor, at least passively adhere to evolution. I am no expert, but the previous poster got at this: so much of the medical knowledge we have comes from an understanding of evolution in science. I think part of the problem is that Christians only look at it as an either or: either evolution or God. So we make it a religious fight, not realizing that so much of what we take for granted, in medicine specifically, comes from an evolutionary understanding.

    Also, I am struck by a few things: my students (given, I work with undergrads) who major in sciences usually accept evolution while it is students who study other things who do not. Along those lines, I have read of many creationists (Albert Mohler) who say the evidence points to evolution but we cannot accept it because we must interpret Genesis 1-2 that way. Such a conclusion makes God into a deceiver, basically saying we cannot trust our own observations. Finally, people like Francis Collins, John Polkinghorne, Alister McGrath and others have done great work in science (at least the first two) and believe in evolution.

    As I understand it the theory of evolution has changed since Darwin's time but it is still considered the best theory to explain the evidence in nature. Even Michael Behe, an intelligent design advocate, believes in descent with modification and natural selection, he just does not believe that mutations are "random", he believes God guides them.

    I know your post was more about schools, but I am unsure what a Creationist biology class would look like: would they study Genesis 1-2? I think as Christians we are to love God with all our mind and thus, like the first scientists (Newton, Kepler, etc) study nature with a vigor to open up its secrets.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Jeff- My case is built around "Science AS religion." Today's science does not allow itself to be wrong (which is antithetical to science). It's no longer a quest for the right answer, it's an established order which people adhere to as much as a religion. People put their "faith" in science as much as people put faith in God. If we do not know every answer, and yet teach nothing but, and in fact teach things that we KNOW to be incomplete, or untrue... what are we doing? We're saying "We know this isn't the right answer... but it's good enough... it's better than allowing OTHER explanations!"

    As for your point about adaptation, no one denies that. If scientists said "We don't know where we came from, it probably had nothing to do with Darwin, but he nailed how things adapt right on the head." then that would be acceptable to teach in schools. The problem is when people start using it to explain how we evolved from primordial soup or how the Big Bang ties into evolution. That's AS unreliable as gravity near a black hole, WAY above high school understanding, and intellectually dishonest... yet we still teach it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Dave- You're right... this is a piece about education and about science... There's no point in debating the science because no one can know what's right, but we can only teach one view. That should be more offensive to a scientist than it is to me, but it's their view that's taught, so they keep quiet. I wouldn't have a problem that Theistic evolution was taught, if alternate theories were also allowed to exist. Here's another thing that Feyerabend says:

    "State and science, however, work closely to-ether. Immense sums are spent on the improvement of scientific ideas. Bastard subjects such as the philosophy of science which have not a single discovery to their credit profit from the boom of the sciences. Even human relations are dealt with in a scientific manner, as is shown by education programmes, proposals for prison reform, army training, and so on. Almost all scientific subjects are compulsory subjects in our schools. While the parents of a six-year-old child can decide to have him instructed in the rudiments of Protestantism, or in the rudiments of the Jewish faith, or to omit religious instruction altogether, they do not have a similar freedom in the case of the sciences. Physics, astronomy, history must be learned. They cannot be replaced by magic, astrology, or by a study of legends."

    I don't have a problem with people learning science, but this bastardization of science, one that omits answers and takes valid arguments out of the equation for no good reason other than "It's not testable or repeatable" when what we're currently taught isn't either, it's a travesty.

    ReplyDelete