Stoopid Stuff

OK, for the last time--There Is No Debate!!

Let's be very clear. I do not live in a "Red State". I live in Silicon Valley. Particularly in this region, with it's great institutions of higher learning and history of applied science, it seems especially shameful to allow a religious and political agenda to be described as, or equated with, science. Intelligent design is not science. Science requires research that makes testable predictions, the outcome of which must be a net increase in mankind's accumulated knowledge. ID makes no predictions that can be tested experimentally, and the outcome of the "research" is to say "It is the result of magic, some unknowable force, and there can be no further discussion". This does not add in any way to mankind's knowledge. There are many theories in the scientific realm that have yet to be adopted as factual, from cold fusion and parallel universes to String Theory and alternatives to the Big Bang. But no one suggests that we should teach these theories in high school science curriculums. They have not met the requirements.

No one, either, is suggesting they should not be studied. Let the people at the Discovery Institute and others who support various forms of Creationism and it's politically dishonest sibling Intelligent Design do what all other scientists have to do. Let them study, do research, perform experiments and write their results in peer-reviewed journals. Let them prove their case, no differently than any other science, including evolution. Of course they cannot, for once again, ID is NOT science. Therefore they resort to the courts and the ballot box, getting their adherents and acolytes elected to school boards in order to pursue their religious and political goals. If that fails, they sue. Can you imagine a physicist going to court to compel the teaching of cold fusion in high schools? Or using the courts to force the local high schools to teach astrology alongside astronomy? Of course not. In science class they teach science, and what is and what is not science is most emphatically not decided by the courts, or by elections, or by popular opinion.


No one says that to believe in the scientific method as a way to understand the natural world is to deny God. There is nothing that science can find, at the end of the day, that would disprove the existence of God. Science is neutral on God. But it is the methodology of science that is under attack here, and that is simply not something we can allow if we are to retain our competitiveness in the global marketplace.


Over and over again, the media makes the statement that there is a "Debate" between evolution and the various religious creation myths, most recently called "Intelligent Design" Let's be very clear: There is NO DEBATE. I recognize that the media feel it is important to appear neutral, to discuss both sides of an issue in order to provide balanced coverage. This works well in politics, business and sports. It is unacceptable in science. In science you are dealing with facts. Opinions hold no value whatsoever. Therefore, to present an argument wholly unsupported and unsupportable because it is a religious belief, not a scientific theory, on an even basis with a scientific theory that works well in describing the world around us, is dishonest, poor journalism, and in no way in the best interest of our community. Religious beliefs require faith. Science requires evidence.


The undermining of good science and the teaching of pseudo-science is to the tremendous detriment of our students. They will be competing in a global economy with peers that were taught the discipline and rigorous methodology of science, and will have very little chance to win that competition. It is up to the mainstream press to draw a line in the sand and describe these beliefs as what they are. Teach them in Bible Study. Teach Science in Science Class

posted by mikey @ 7:20 PM