Re: Science Questions

starbug_56 · Tue, 03 Apr 2001 11:24:02 -0700

Hayden wrote:

> Accepting evolution on
blind faith is no less foolish than accepting
creationism on blind faith.

And Jeremy
wrote:

> So, in effect hard-core evolution is very much
like a religion. It is faith-based. However...the
evolutionist religion would like to limit any speech that does
not support it.

First of all, there's a straw
man here. No reputable biologist would ask you to
accept or reject a scientific theory on "blind faith".
The Institute for Creation Research might require its
teachers to take an oath of belief in Biblical inerrancy,
but my department doesn't ask me to pledge my belief
in the infallibility of Darwin, Dobzhansky, or Gould
(and in fact, that would be a ridiculous and useless
way to teach biology). The occasional individual --
biologist, preacher, plumber, accountant -- might rail at
you on the subject of evolution if your opinions
clashed, and might even tell you to shut up, but that's
about as close to scientific inquiry as a barroom
dispute between a Yankee fan and a Red Sox fan is to
exercise science. 

Evolution is technically a
process by which allele frequencies (the variety of forms
of genes) change in populations over time. It is not
a theological explanation for the existence of
humankind, nor is it a guideline for individual human
behavior. The details of evolutionary processes are quite
amenable to scientific study, and there's plenty of solid
evidence (from the fossil record, comparative morphology,
DNA and protein variation) to support its existence.
Scientific inquiry, however, can neither support nor refute
religious ideas because we simply can't test them that way.

As an analogy, there is absolutely no way for me to
know, when I drop one of my favorite dishes on the
floor and it breaks, whether this is an inescapable
consequence of gravity or whether a deity wanted my dish to
break at that moment. In the meantime, I trust enough
in gravity to try to avoid dropping my dishes. This
is a practical concession to both scientific theory
and personal experience, but it's hardly a statement
of either religious faith or doubt on my
part.

By the way, I've yet to hear of any biologist asking
for governmental censorship of the opinions of
creationists (whereas I've heard plenty of accounts of the
reverse, such as the current flap over teaching evolution
in Arkansas public schools). I've certainly heard of
biologists fighting efforts to force religious lessons into
public-school science classes, and I stand firmly in that camp,
just as I would oppose the teaching of flat-earthism
in geology classes. Folks can preach creationism in
the churches and on street corners, they can publish
books in favor of it, and they can certainly teach it
in biology classes at Bob Jones University and other
private institutions. But, nobody's going to make me
teach creationist versions of life science in my
college classroom. Or, more precisely, I'd be glad to
acknowledge its existence in a historical and allegorical
context. I'm just not about to call it biology.

Julie