Abnormal Interests

« The Discovery Institute's List Grows Shorter
Main
Relativism: for Creationists, Sometimes it's Good and Sometimes it's Bad »

August 26, 2005

A Pro-Science Article with a Purpose

I've recently taken a whack at some poor journalism on science. I'd like to point to an op-ed article in today's Los Angeles Times that I think hits at least one of the nails on the head. The opinion piece by Edward J. Larson is called "A natural selection: intelligent design" and at first I thought I was going to hate it. The title seems confusing and Larson uses words like "Darwinists" and "Darwinism" a little too much for my taste. He also started out in a way that put me off. His second paragraph reads,

Americans simply don't find Darwinism very appealing. According to modern Darwinists, random genetic variations chosen in a survival-of-the-fittest process created all living things, even humans — with nothing guaranteeing our emergence at the top of the heap. Darwinism is not a comforting world view for conscious, egotistical beings like us.

He goes on to explain that, "Humans are mammals with a sense of purpose" and what many don't like about evolution is their belief that it takes away the purpose of life. I think it is true that many people fear a loss of meaning in life if they accept modern science. Personally, I think science adds meaning and purpose but who cares what I think. And then he turns his attention to Intelligent Design creationism:

Intelligent design, despite its proponents' claims to the contrary, isn't modern science. It's part of that rebellion against it. Scientists look for natural explanations for natural phenomena. Their best explanations, if they survive rigorous testing, become scientific theories.

Intelligent design, in contrast, is a critique of all that. Its proponents may challenge the sufficiency of evolutionary explanations for the origin of species but they have not — and cannot — offer testable alternative explanations. The best they can offer is the premise that, if no natural explanation suffices, then God must have done it. Maybe God did do it, but if so, it's beyond science.

And of course, that is what many people like about Intelligent Design creationism. I was still a little concerned about which way all this was all going even if it was otherwise correct. Larson expands on the idea that many people want to go "beyond science" and how Bush and others are promoting this desire for "purpose."

I was still concerned. Then Larson explained how scientists look at the world and began his buildup to a conclusion.

Science is a particular way of looking at natural phenomena. It seeks testable, repeatable — and therefore exploitable — explanations. That is why science is valuable. It tells us how to use nature. What we know about evolution allows us to combat pathogens by discovering ways to disable or eliminate them. What we know about evolution allows us to understand ecological relationships and preserve habitats. What we know about evolution allows us to explore genetic relationships and push the frontiers of biotechnology.

Whether or not we like science, we need it — and the theory of evolution is part of the package. Modern biologists looking at nature through the lens of Darwinism have transformed our lives through breakthroughs in medicine, agriculture, and genetics.

As a critique of science, intelligent design could have a place in the classroom too — but not as an alternative to the theory of evolution. Rather, good biology teachers could use issues raised by the intelligent design movement to help their classes better understand Darwinism.

In the end, science students must learn how to see nature as scientists see it. Anything else would be … purposeless.

While I am a little concerned about exploitation of nature as part of science, I finally came to see where Larson was heading and I sure liked the destination. In rereading the piece, I came to understand the reason for all the opening commentary of human nature. Many people believe his points in this regard and that belief has repeatedly been harmful to science. At no point did Larson give the slightest credence to Intelligent Design creationism. He did give an explanation of its appeal and a very practical, understandable, justification for its rejection. Even his point about using "issues raised by the intelligent design movement" is not a call to "teach the controversy" but simply a pragmatic pedagogical suggestion for teaching the science. By the way, while good biology teachers might be able to use this suggestion, mediocre ones should avoid it like the plague. On balance, I think this was a good, instructive piece, when the general audience is considered.

Posted by Duane Smith at August 26, 2005 7:06 PM | Read more on Evolution |

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1329

Comments

Posted by: John A. Davison at August 28, 2005 8:11 AM

Sorry, comments are closed for this post.
Send me an email if it is important.

Tags: