It is once again obvious that people have strong feelings concerning religion. The hiring in Marysville of a biology teacher who has a history of teaching Intelligent Design has elicited many varied and sincere comments in this paper. One has the feeling from reading what has been written that the conventional wisdom concerning the futility of discussing religion is still valid.
However, there is a different aspect of the topic which needs to be addressed. Contained within the printed discussions has been a thread of reasoning concerning the nature of science and science education. The claim is that: evolution is “just” a theory, it doesn’t address anything beyond natural laws, and other ideas should also be taught. Each of the three parts of such a position warrants comment.
The initial problem with this position arises from a difference in word usage within the scientific community compared to that in everyday speech. The assumption that the word “theory” indicates a lack of confidence in an idea is not valid as used in science. A scientific theory is a unifying principle which explains the relationship of a body of facts. Although some scientific theories are more tentative than others, many are virtually universally accepted and form the cornerstones of whole branches of science. Examples include the atomic theory in chemistry, the germ theory of disease in Medicine, and the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics in physics. Though still called theories, these principles are among the greatest and most important achievements in science.
It is in fact the many achievements of science which validate its underlying approach. The core of science is in dealing only with natural laws. Science addresses what can be observed, measured and recorded. That it does not deal with the spiritual or supernatural is deliberate and consistent. In so limiting its range of concern, the successes of science have been many. Perhaps because of its many triumphs some feel science should be applied to every human concern. Yet literature, art, love and spirituality are beyond the sphere of science. They are no less important for being so; but because they are outside the realm of science, scientific principles should not be used to explain them. To do so invites disappointment.
In science education, disappointments will surely follow if ideas rejected by the scientific community are taught to our students. For if any such notions peripheral to a subject’s accepted principles are permitted, all ideas must be allowed to be presented in our schools. We could be forced to permit flat-earth discussions in geography, denial of the Holocaust in history, consideration of demon-caused illness in health, reading of Tarot cards in economics and the benefits of communism in civics. In science, as in all disciplines, accepted wisdom can change over time; but the refinement of communal knowledge must be left to those equipped to do the job. Subject debates should be between leaders in the field, not vulnerable students who have yet to gain sufficient background to adopt an informed opinion. In science classes, our students need to be taught the science accepted by the world scientific community.
Retired High School Science Teacher
Mukilteo
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
