Don:

If I were to teach biology again, this is what I would do.

I would take a book like "The Genesis Flood" written by John C. Whitcomb and
Henry M. Morris (of ICR). This book basically deals with geological
evidence. Since much of the basis of the theory of evolution is grounded in
geological evidence, one cannot isolate the two. I would treat any
conclusions reached by the authors with a great deal of mistrust (because of
ICR's way of doing "science") but I would look at the references quoted by
the authors and see if their work and conclusions are reasonable. Then I
would organize the material, along with evolutionary evidence, and expect my
class (of high school students) to look at this evidence and come up with
their own conclusions. Then their conclusions might be respectfully
challenged by other students (not me - too much like big brother). This
would only teach the 1st phase of any scientific inquiry - reference
research. Trying to make it into anything more is a dis-service to the
students. Of course, my students would already know this because 60-80% of
their class time would have been devoted to learning by hands-on
experimentation - not just from text books. This approach teaches students
much more about science and life than text book "preaching". By the way,
one of the reasons I'm not still teaching is that it is rare to find a
school district that would fund and promote such an approach to science.

Teresa:

Loved your message but I am forced to agree somewhat with Don. Also, I
think that there might be room for 7.,8.,9.... in your list of viewpoints.
Actually, since we are all in this system, everything becomes quite
mistical, doesn't it. "What is Truth?"

If I say anything more, then I'll start trying to force my beliefs on
everyone.

Dave Spencer

merdave at televar.com
spencers at orchids-nw.com
http://orchids-nw.com/spencersgreenhouse/


----- Original Message -----
From: Don Baccus <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
To: <avocet at emeraldnet.net>; Tweeters <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: Philosophy of belief systems (off topic)


> At 11:42 AM 8/12/99 -0700, Teresa Michelsen wrote:
> >OK, I'll state up front that I consider myself a scientist, and I do not
> >have a belief about God one way or the other. I would like to address
the
> >topic of whether or not science is a belief system. I think we can all
> >agree that religions are belief systems. Many people object to putting
> >science and religion on an equal footing, because they believe science is
an
> >objective way of studying the world, and religion, fundamentally
speaking,
> >rests on faith. Therefore, according to this way of thinking, science is
> >not a belief, but a system of facts (and many people take it further to
> >state that facts belong in schools and beliefs or religions don't).
>
> >Although I practice science, I consider this a conscious choice, similar
to
> >selecting a religion. I DO think that science is a system of beliefs;
and
> >the validity of those beliefs is not any more provable than religion.
>
> This is one way to look at science, and your post is a very thoughtful
> examination of that point of view.
>
> A more mundane way of looking at science is to simply take it at
> face value: science is about explaining how the natural world works.
>
> Nothing more.
>
> Science says nothing about the supernatural (i.e. things not in
> nature, not observable or measurable but outside the scheme, God
> being one example of a supernatural construct).
>
> Which is one reason I think so many scientists find it easy to
> reconcile their personal religous beliefs with their work as
> science.
>
> You're looking deeper, I think, into questions like "what does
> science tell us about the MEANING of reality?"
>
> I think the simplest answer is "nothing". The fact that we
> observe evolution, that the natural selection appears to best
> fit the evidence, says nothing about "why is the world here?"
> or "is there meaning beyond our daily existence?"
>
> Deep religous thinkers seem to skate right over science and
> worry about things that are perhaps more important in the long
> run, i.e. the meaningfulness of human existence, morality,
> etc. This is as true of Christian theologians.
>
> It seems to be insecure and petty religous thinkers who
> view science as a threat to religon.
>
> Anyway, I think I have to disagree with your statement that
> science is a system of beliefs as unprovable as religon, for
> the simple reason that the claims of science are so modest.
>
> You don't have to be a scientist to discount the existence of
> anything outside nature (i.e. to believe that there is nothing
> supernatural "out there"). Nor do you have to drop any belief
> of the existence of the supernatural (God, perhaps) in order
> to practice science.
>
> Science per se claims to be good at helping learn, say, how to
> build cars and airplanes and how natural selection impacts the
> diveristy of life on earth, nothing more.
>
> (I realize some philosophers claim more for scientists, and
> many scientists do as well, but this lies outside science,
> does it not?)
>
> ...
>
> >Why do I think it's not provable? There is a long-standing tenet of both
> >philosophy and science that self-referential systems cannot be proven.
>
> In fact, your statement's been proven true for mathematical systems. The
> natural world is self-referential, by definition, so the philisophical
issues
> that are raised are obvious.
>
> Of course, science isn't about "proof" in the mathematical sense, anyway,
> an attribute which dishonest creationists leap on at every opportunity.
> "Science 'admits' theories can't be proved, therefore evolution is just a
> religion"
>
> A theory fits known data, but we can't prove that the theory is complete,
> and any theory is subject to change when new data is discovered. Today,
> our warehouse of data for many subjects is quite complete, and we can
> be quite comfortable talking about things like gravity, fission, and
> the evolution of life on earth.
>
> Of course, we can't prove that God won't end the universe tomorrow, but
> that would be a supernatural event and lies outside of science.
>
> ...
>
> >In order to be absolutely right, therefore, about whether the religious
or
> >scientific belief structure is correct,
>
> I have a real problem with this. Many modern theologians approach the
> problem by viewing the two as being complementary. In other words,
neither
> is complete, so neither can be correct in any absolute sense.
>
> This doesn't mean that science isn't a better tool for understanding
> the natural world that lies within its limited domain of study.
>
> It also doesn't mean that the modes of thought brought to the table
> by religion and philosophy aren't better for dealing with issues such
> as, say, ethics. Or the meaning of life.
>
> ...
>
> >My point here is that none of these propositions can be proven.
>
> So-called scientific creationists don't believe in any of the propositions
> that you propose, and indeed seem to be on record as considering each of
> them equally blasphemous.
>
> Did you intentionally leave out the so-called scientific creationist
> proposition, i.e. that the data is consistent with a universe created
> just a bit over 6,000 years ago and that science, having been enlisted
> by Satan in his battle against God on earth, has been lying about
> the data in order to subvert Christianity?
>
> > The sooner
> >we realize that we all choose our belief system, the sooner we can stop
> >trivializing others' beliefs or thinking our own to be superior.
>
> I hold honesty to be superior to dishonesty, however, and don't
> really care if that's because I've chosen my belief system or not.
> Scientific creationism is inherently dishonest, and I was raised
> with a firm belief in the Ten Commandments. While I don't
> consider myself to be a particularly religous person, I have held
> on to certain of the moral beliefs that were taught to me as a
> child.
>
> Science didn't teach me morals, early religious training did. Science
> has taught me much about the way our world works, though, and those
> who lie about it get caught smack between my moralistic religious
> training which taught me to abhor dishonesty and my knowledge of
> science.
>
> I'm not alone in having respect for religion, including Christianity,
> while reviling the dishonest liars of the Institute for Creation
> Research.
>
> Thoughtful folks will also realize that scientists who work to
> maintain the integrity of scientific education in this country are
> very specific in attacking so-called scientific creationism, NOT
> Christianity (or other religous systems).
>
> It is the insistence by scientific creationists that religon be
> taught in science classrooms AS SCIENCE, along with their lying
> about that motive in public (though the motive has been stated
> often enough to fellow Christians) that triggers such deep
> antipathy among scientists.
>
> As I'm sure you're aware, many of the most vehement opponents
> of so-called scientific creationists are deeply religous
> Christians themselves, deeply offended by the notion that we
> should try to bolster faith in students (and others) by lying
> about the natural world in the name of God.
>
> ...
>
> >When I feel tempted to denigrate Creationists or any other belief
> >system that I personally find unlikely, it is instructive to remind
myself
> >that none of these systems can be proven, and that the vast majority of
the
> >world believes in either 2, 3, or 4 above.
>
> I think this is a wise way to think.
>
> However, if you think that this is the basis of the argument against
> the teaching of so-called scientific creationism in the science classroom,
> or the basis of the argument against religious censorship of science
> education, you're mistaken.
>
> A very simple idea: the insistence that religion be taught as religion
> is every bit as respectful of religion as it is of science. Teaching
> the two modes of thought as being separate, complementary ways of trying
> to make sense of the universe is in no way disrespectful of religion.
>
> Likewise, the notion that we lie about data in order to teach religion
> as though it is science trivializes religion. Think about it - this
> insistence essentially says "science is valid, religion is not, when
> science contradicts the Bible we must censor science because Christianity
> is too weak to survive truth"
>
> This speaks of a horrible insecurity in one's faith, if one is faithful.
>
> ...
>
> >In the meantime, I appreciate your participation in Tweeters whether you
are
> >marvelling over the intricacies of evolution or delighting in the beauty
> >that God has created. Why does it matter?
>
> It matters because truthfulness does matter, in my humble opinion. While
> there can be no absolute truth, it is equally true that their can be lies.
>
> And the entire premise of so-called scientific creationism is based on a
> lie.
>
> > Why do so many people feel
> >compelled to force their systems on everyone? Or prohibit others from
being
> >discussed or practiced? Sigh...
>
> Do you believe that any and all lies should be taught as science?
>
> Should we teach that the earth is flat, and call it science?
>
> It really isn't about tolerance, Theresa, and it saddens me to some degree
> to see you cast the argument in such terms. How can this be about
intolerance
> of Christianity when so many of its practioners are devout? If the
reaction
> against the teaching of religion AS SCIENCE is an example of "forcing ones
> systems on everyone" or "prohibiting others from being discussed or
> practiced", then why do devout scientists vehemently opposed to the
teaching
> of religion AS SCIENCE speak equally in favor of teaching religion AS
> RELIGION? The argument is every bit as much about the integrity of
> religion as of science.
>
> If we start teaching religion and call it science, can I start teaching
> plumbing at call it mathematics? Or worse, for most of us (given how
> important plumbing is to our day-to-day enjoyment of life), can I teach
> math and call it plumbing?
>
> If we start down this path, just where do you suggest we stop?
>
>
>
> - Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
> Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
> http://donb.photo.net.
>