Transcript Document
Is acceptance of scientific findings compatible with religious belief? Is acceptance of Darwinian evolution compatible with religious belief? Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory August 17, 2005 | Issue 41•33 KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling. "Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University. Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power." A partial taxonomy of creationists • Young earth creationists A partial taxonomy of creationists • Young earth creationists • Old earth creationists – including progressive creationists A partial taxonomy of creationists • Young earth creationists • Old earth creationists – including progressive creationists • Intelligent Design creationists Distinctive features of ID • Legacy of "creation science" Distinctive features of ID • Legacy of "creation science" • Does not specify alternate mechanism Courts keep creationism out of schools • • • • • • • Epperson v. Arkansas 1968 Segraves v. State of California 1981 McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education 1982 Edwards v. Aguillar 1987 Webster v. New Lenox School District 1990 Peloza v. Capistrano School District 1994 Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education 1997 • Rodney LeVake v Independent School District 656, et al. 2000 Distinctive features of ID • Legacy of "creation science" • Does not specify alternate mechanism • Explicitly rejects naturalism Distinctive features of ID • Legacy of "creation science" • Does not specify alternate mechanism • Explicitly rejects naturalism • Argument from design Distinctive features of ID • Legacy of "creation science" • Does not specify alternate mechanism • Explicitly rejects naturalism • Argument from design – "irreducible complexity" – "complex specified information" Argument from design • Anticipated by Darwin Argument from design • Anticipated by Darwin • Influenced by work of William Paley – Natural Theology, 1802 ". . . the inference we think is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker. " "The marks of design are too strong to be got over. Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person is God." The argument from personal incredulity revisited "The simple little mousetrap has no ability to trap a mouse until several separate parts are all assembled. Because the mousetrap is necessarily composed of several parts, it is irreducibly complex." ID proponents conflate two concepts • Methodological naturalism – a key component of science • Ontological naturalism – a philosophical position ID is a strictly negative formulation ID is a strictly negative formulation "This isn't right. It's not even wrong" Wolfgang Pauli ID is a strictly negative formulation "This isn't right. It's not even wrong" Wolfgang Pauli What testable predictions does ID theory make? The challenge to teachers • ID is not credible to scientists, but is credible to the public The challenge to teachers • ID is not credible to scientists, but is credible to the public – polished rhetoric meets scientific illiteracy – well-funded, shrewd political effort The challenge to teachers • ID is not credible to scientists, but is credible to the public – polished rhetoric meets scientific illiteracy – well-funded, shrewd political effort • Directly confronting ID legitimizes it – a goal of the ID movement The challenge to teachers • ID is not credible to scientists, but is credible to the public – polished rhetoric meets scientific illiteracy – well-funded, shrewd political effort • Directly confronting ID legitimizes it – a goal of the ID movement • Students and parents include committed creationists Guiding principle • In a science classroom, science is the only appropriate subject. Teach the controversy? Teach the controversy? No. • The controversy is religious or philosophical, not scientific Teach the controversy? No. • The controversy is religious or philosophical, not scientific – ID is not science • rejects methodological naturalism • makes no positive predictions Teach the controversy? No. • The controversy is religious or philosophical, not scientific – ID is not science • rejects methodological naturalism • makes no positive predictions • False duality Teach the controversy? No. • The controversy is religious or philosophical, not scientific – ID is not science • rejects methodological naturalism • makes no positive predictions • False duality – what about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Strategy • Do not directly engage ID in the classroom Strategy • Do not directly engage ID in the classroom – but be prepared to defend evolution outside the classroom Strategy • Do not directly engage ID in the classroom – but be prepared to defend evolution outside the classroom • Stick with the evolutionary basics – make sure you're confident in your knowledge of them – not always necessary to make explicit connection with evolution The basics • VIST - variation, inheritance, selection, time • Life has changed over time • Living things are linked by common descent • Natural selection leads to change, especially adaptation Mass Frameworks, High School 1. Explain how evolution is demonstrated by evidence from the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetics, molecular biology, and examples of natural selection. 2. Describe species as reproductively distinct groups of organisms. Recognize that species are further classified into a hierarchical taxonomic system (kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species) based on morphological, behavioral, and molecular similarities. Describe the role that geographic isolation can play in speciation. 3. Explain how evolution through natural selection can result in changes in biodiversity through the increase or decrease of genetic diversity from a population. Mass Frameworks, Grades 6-8 10. Give examples of ways in which genetic variation and environmental factors are causes of evolution and the diversity of organisms. 11. Recognize that evidence drawn from geology, fossils, and comparative anatomy provide the basis of the theory of evolution. 12. Relate the extinction of species to a mismatch of adaptation and the environment. Energy content of fruits marble fruit rock fruit 10 calories 8 calories bean fruit corn fruit 5 calories 2 calories big bill medium bill small bill to survive 80 cal 50 cal 25 cal to reproduce 160 cal 100 cal 50 cal