Learn from the mistakes of others

Monkey Business

For students who doubt the validity of evolution, college science class can be daunting. What happens when beliefs and school work collide?

Victoria Bosch (a senior at Penn State University, recent intern with Slate magazine.)

Current Magazine, Winter 2005
Updated: Dec. 6, 2005 10:46 a.m. ET

Rich Scott’s first few days on the West Chester University campus in suburban Philadelphia were spent worrying—and not just because he was nervous about getting along with his roommate. A recent graduate of a Christian high school, Scott had grown up with parents, teachers and pastors telling him that God created the earth in six days and that evolution is a myth. “Make sure you know what you believe,” Scott’s teachers had said in class as they encouraged their pupils to defend and explain their beliefs about the origin of humankind. And so Scott went to college armed with a firm belief in intelligent design and a determination not to let his years in school affect his conviction in God.

This disconnect between belief and reality is becoming more common, not only in the USA but here is Australia. The growth of fundamentalist/evangelical Christian schools has been rapid, in concert with the growth in evangelical Christian congregations. And an equally rapid growth in belief in Creationism.

The debate between scientists and Christians is cast as an ideological one. And it is. It is the conflict between a dogged insistence on the literal truth of documents written thousands of years ago and an equally dogged insistence that reality just might bear no relationship to them.

I find it ironic that the many evangelical sects have become what their forebears rejected so adamantly: centres of dogma and authority. They have become the Catholic Church that the Protestant movement was protesting about in the first place. All authority residing in the priest (however named, they're still the priest even if they're not priestly), font of all wisdom, authority on The Book(s), and all round director and cheerleader for the community under their watchful eye.

Some of these communities demand a tithe for the upkeep of the temple and it's priests. Conformity is not only encouraged, but enforced through regular meetings, discreet sub-groups with individuals assigned to ensure everyone in their cell is "on message". Wayward folk who do not fall into line are subject to ejection and rejection by those who are "in good standing". Excommunication was harder to achieve - and still is - within the original Church.

Evangelical communities recast belief in God to mean belief in their idea of God. To be afraid that to sway from complete acceptance of creationism and other forms of "literalism" means that you no longer believe in God is both absurd and a symptom of the control mechanisms used by these sects. Belief in God is not the result of belief in a particular construction of 'God'. If anything, it works the other way around. Belief in Deity ought to be the prerequisite for belief in any particular version of Deity™.

The very fact that evangelicals have to spend so much time and effort convincing themselves of what they believe simply highlights the fragility of dogma that clashes with reality, and in particular the fragility of propaganda in an environment of contrary information.

At the end of her article, Bosch, concludes:

Even if students like Scott and Maxson reject evolutionary theory, it is still necessary to understand it, says Niall Shanks, a professor of history and philosophy of science at Wichita State University. Shanks has taken part in numerous debates about evolution and intelligent design across the country. “If a student can demonstrate that he or she understands the scientific theory, that’s where my interest in the matter ends,” he says. “Students find that, I think, less threatening, because I think some of them come in with the view that the science professor is going to wrestle with them for their souls. It’s not the point of a science education.”

This highlights who different philosophy of science is from science itself. A philosopher has the luxury of wiping his/her hands after being satisfied that his audience got the point of his clever argument. A scientist is not concerned with the souls of his/her audience, but with describing the physical world around us. That description is not a mere intellectual exercise. It is the whole point of their activity as a scientist.

Demonstrating understanding of a scientific theory is not the same as demonstrating that they ever intend to use that understanding. In short, obtaining a major in Biology is not the same as being a Biologist. The former is the achievement of a series of goals. The latter is the application of scientific practices and processes to better understand living things.

Shanks warns that there are greater implications to the evolution debate than a grade in Biology 101. If America is seen as a nation that rejects commonly accepted scientific theory, the country might lose out. “Like it or lump it. If you’re going to prosper in this kind of environment, you’ve got to be biologically literate.”

There is more to worry about than America's precious reputation. The reason scientific theories (models of reality) are commonly accepted is because they work as explanations and descriptions of The Real World™. If they don't, where they are found to be flawed, the scientific process refines and adjusts the models/theories.

Dogma like "Intelligent Design"™ (which I have been referring to as Stupid Design™, but have recently been convinced would be better described as Incompetent Design™ - as so an example of the point I'm making here) is not scientific - at the very least because it is prescriptive. Incompetent Design™ starts with answers, not questions, which is the very reverse of science.

It is no coincidence that the Industrial Revolution and the Scientific Revolution were coincident in history. They fed one another. New understandings of the physical world enabled new ways of exploiting. Science informs engineering which manipulates our environment to do stuff we want. Which may well enable someone to figure more stuff out that feeds back into the cycle.

Our political leaders talk about creating environments that foster innovation and allow us to expand our minds at the same time as pursuing political (and therefore social and economic) agendas that seriously restrict both.

It is not enough to substitute the urgency of "war" for other forms of inspiration. Innovation is inherently unpredictable and unstable. It is only hindsight (aka history) that allows us to pick out patterns in the many ways ideas have transformed our societies and environments. Belief is not necessarily inimical to change, but some beliefs are.