Faith vs Science in Schools

bailey bud wrote: I don't think the "why" is something that should be ignored in education.

That's why we have philosophy, history, and religious studies.

Granted - first principles are a tough for most students. However, I'd argue it's essential for any education.

A lot of our problems emerge because we fail to think.

Granted - many of today's "christian" fundamentalists would prefer not to think (ergo, you see creationism and providential history in their curriculum). However, I think the lack of thought is just as prevalent among materialists. Just look at Ibsen's Enemy of the People . When science dwells solely on science --- it becomes less relevant, and ergo - less effective.

I think ID introduces a way of thinking that forces students to consider why they know what they know

---

and it might even help them persuade others to know what they know.

Agreed! I realized that I didn't make this point in my last post well enough; we're essentially saying the same thing:
[quoteemScience Chic:1fetnvaz]there is absolutely no reason that science and a philosophy of science couldn't co-exist because there are a great many discoveries in science that require moral application (stem cell therapy, brain scans of criminals that could potentially be applied to someone on trial to prove guilt, genetic engineering of novel organisms never before existing in nature, etc).[/quoteem:1fetnvaz] Science can, but I don't believe should, be done without a philosophy background; science for science's sake (aka only the sake of knowledge) can lead to dangerous paths taken that should not be (say, for example, when we do finally figure out the how-to of cloning a human - just because we can doesn't mean we should). And as of right now, they are separate courses, which is perfect because they require a different kind of focus and thought process. In science, you learn how to do it, and the knowledge that has already been discovered; in philosophy you learn how to apply that knowledge to real-world situations that are ambivalent or highly gray areas that don't necessarily have a right or wrong answer but require you to think about what you know and what's the best decision to make with the knowledge at hand that does the least harm. Keeping that big picture view in mind when going back to the lab creates more thoughtful, responsible scientists.

CinnamonGirl wrote:

Science Chic wrote: CG, all I can say is please read The Wedge Document that I posted, and the summary from the Council of Europe, and the Berkeley list of whether ID is a science.

Your opinion. I will read that if you read some items I have. I don't think reading this stuff is going to change either of our minds so back on point. How do we compromise?

No, those documents are not my opinion - they are from other sources (one being the Discovery Institute itself, which pushes these legal challenges) and I quoted them so that you could read them yourself, and form your own opinions. If you aren't going to bother, then we can't have a discussion. And what we seem to be hung up on is that you consider ID a science, when it's not, and you aren't considering the implications of adding a group with an anti-science agenda into a science classroom. As you said earlier, "science should stay out of religion" - well then religion should stay out of science by that reckoning, or if ID is taught in science classes, then science should be taught in religion classes. That doesn't make any sense to me.

I already said my compromise - put it in a religion or philosophy course. It's not science, it doesn't belong in science, any more than philosophy belongs in a science class. Is philosophy essential to doing good science that benefits all of humankind without stepping across moral boundaries and so that science isn't done merely for science' sake? ABSOLUTELY. However, that's an elective that's up to each individual who is learning science, but it is already highly encouraged within at least the biology field, if not others. It doesn't matter if ID is what's taught or not, the goal is getting future scientists to think about what they are doing so they make more responsible, morally-sound choices with their research.

CinnamonGirl wrote: Really if science would stay out of religion by not clinging to the "it's not a theory" argument the problem would be solved but I don't see any compromise.

This statement has me completely lost - what do you mean by "science staying out of religion" (it already does) and "it's not a theory argument"?

bailey bud wrote: The crux of the Wedge Document is a challenge to materialism - not necessarily evolution by itself.

I'm trained in economics ---- and free-market economics to be specific. Therefore, I'm not really keen to demonize materialism (it's a crucial component to utilitarianism).

I think it's humorous that the Wedge Document authors want to lump Darwin and Marx, together. The linkages between the two are weak, at best.

To my eyes, Darwin seems to have more in common with Herbert Spencer (a social Darwinist) than Karl Marx.

Getting back to Wedge

---

a large portion of modern science is built on materialist pre-suppositions. The Wedge authors argue this doesn't need to be the case. Given the authors all have substantive academic credentials, I'm not sure I'd say it was an attack on science, as much as an attack on the pre-suppositions that scientists hold to - perhaps unnecessarily.

Yes, it is a challenge to materialism, but they blame science for being the basis of that materialism and their document reads like a hostile takeover. One of their stated goals is "To replace materialistic explanations (that come from science, as they explained in their intro) with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

In their Five Year Goals, they have stated "To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory."

Then, in their Twenty Year Goals, that changes to "To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science" and "To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral, and political life."

If a scientific idea has merit, and those who test it keep getting results that reinforce that idea, then the old idea gets tossed in favor of the stronger, more credible idea and it becomes theory. It should not have to be "sold" to the public by "cultivating and convincing influential individuals in print and broadcast media, as well as think tank leaders, scientists, congressional staff, talk show hosts, <snip>" nor require "building up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely Christians". (see page 6 for their Five Year Strategic Plan Summary where they said exactly that). That smacks of agenda, not building an idea on merit and solid objective fact - which is what science is.

To date, despite being around for more than a decade, they have yet to build any testable hypotheses, and the biggest idea that they tried to use as proof that there had to be a designer, irreducable complexity, has been proven wrong in multiple instances by more than one discipline (genetics, biochemistry, biomechanics/biophysics). If you want to say that how we evolve was set up by a designer in the beginning, that's fine, but to try to claim that you an find proof in each individual organism that exists at this micro-point in time is absurd - no matter what the results, it would be attributable to that designer, even if the results conflicted? In science, when results conflict, you keep testing to find out which is true and which false - you don't throw your hands up in the air and say this is just the way it is - that furthers our knowledge none.

To me, the problem is that science is misunderstood. There is no reason for science to be used to push spirituality out, as science isn't meant to answer those questions, nor should it replace morality - even if one accepts that biology and the environment are the sole causes of creating who we are, that gives us no excuse to not be better people than that...because we are. Using science as an explanation for the way things are (as they exist now) does not mean that one is "materialistic" and therefore immoral. Evolution, and all of science, for that matter, are not be-all, end-all's - it's merely the pursuit of discovering how things work: we learn as we go, gaining confidence in knowledge that is reinforced with each experiment and tossing that which is proven wrong.