A couple of months ago we had two posts based on a book Darwin and the Bible: The Cultural Confrontation
- (first, second). This book was designed (with only modest success) to "help readers understand the nature, history, and passions behind the debate between scientific and religious versions of creation and human origin." Today I would like to return to this book and address the concerns of the penultimate chapter.
- (Chapter 13 of Darwin and the Bible
is titled quite succinctly "Turmoil." This chapter was written by Laura Perras, at the time a first year student at SUNY College Plattsburgh. Raised in a religious, antievolutionist background attending public schools and a public University, her emphasis in this essay is on the turmoil caused by the current debates, approaches, and language. Her point of view:
Evolution or creationism? That is the ultimatum that has prompted the war over what should be taught in American classrooms. This ongoing battle, as chaotic as the primordial waters, had been brewing for many years now. ... Similar to a hurricane over the gulf, it keeps circling and striking land from numerous angles. The controversy of evolution versus creation is here to stay and students are going to need more than rain ponchos to protect themselves from the crashing waves. (p. 176)
Here is the question I would like to consider today:
Is "turmoil" a common experience? If so, what can we do to help students, in high school, college, and beyond, weather the storm? How do you think these issues should be approached in public schools? Do you think Christian schools should present "both sides"?
Perras describes her upbringing (northern USA, Methodist, not fundamentalist), her initial inherited view of creationism (typical young earth variety), and the experience of confrontation.
My own public education, although exceptionally good, spawned these feelings of frustration and confusion. I distinctly remember a particular lesson in my seventh grade science class. The teacher was showing us slides, describing different beliefs that humans have come up with in regard to human origin. The first was of a woman, a man, a tree, and a red sky. The instructor called it the "creation myth" and on hearing those words, I felt the hair on my arms stand on edge. I remember thinking: "Myth? What is he talking about? It is not a myth! He's wrong!" I was deeply confused by the fact that one of my teachers would try to discredit the lessons I had been taught in Sunday school. ... I adopted the use of a wall. This wall, similar to the Casparian strip in plant cells, prevents things from going in and coming out. I closed my mind to evolution, refused to learn about it, and kept telling myself that creationism was 100 percent correct. (p. 180)
Several years later a senior project (attempting to prove that creationism did work and evolution was just a guess) led to discovery of a number of problems: Genesis 1 and 2 are not entirely compatible stories of creation; evolution at some level did exist and undeniably; and Christians have various views on the topics. Perras wound up defending a day-age, microevolution view in her project. By the end of her first year of college when this essay was written she was leaning toward theistic evolution as an approach to the issues of science and faith.
Perras concludes her essay with a call for reason:
It is imperative that students learn about evolution, but it is also important that they are given a chance to learn about their faith. Both needs are equal. Students do not deserve to be given an education that neglects one approach and asserts another belief that is contrary to their religious beliefs or scientific studies. Compromises can be made. (p. 184).
This problem - the "conflict" between science and faith - is often given as part of the reason for loss of faith (see the chapter on apostasy in Scot's book Finding Faith, Losing Faith: Stories of Conversion and Apostasy for some discussion and personal stories). Turmoil certainly describes the experience of some people.
for some discussion and personal stories). Turmoil certainly describes the experience of some people.Does "turmoil" describe your experience?
What is the appropriate approach to the creation controversy in our world today
- in our families
- in our schools (including home schools)
- in our churches
- on College and University campuses?
In your experience what works - and what doesn't?
And now I will really step into it (this book arose in large part out of the Dover, Kansas, and Texas controversies over ID in the middle of the decade):
Does the discussion of Intelligent Design (that intelligent design was involved and that the effects of this design are empirically discernable) help or hurt?
If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail [at] att.net.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
UC-
Tiktaalik is a fossil, and I don't think it represents the kind of genetics evidence RJS was talking about. She can advise in that regard.
If you look at the Cambrian fossils, the Ediacara fossils, and the entire fossil record, I do not think the entire fossil record supports Darwinian theory at the higher levels of classification, no matter how you group them. When you put Tiktaalik in the context of the entire fossil record, it does not tell us all that much. But it is a very cool fossil, I will grant you that.
Dopderbeck (#57),
You say "What you really need is the solution many cosmologists propose: a multiverse in which every possible universe is instantiated. "Fine-tuning" in our universe would then be no big deal; it would simply represent the fact that if you roll the dice an infinite number of times, all probabilities are realized. But not only are we now light years from the puddle analogy, we're outside the realm of empirical science. You can't, after all, test for the possibility of alternate universes that by definition are not observable."
Agreed that you can't directly observe multiple universes -- just like you can't directly observe a lot of things in science -- but you can empirically test the theories that may require multiple universes. There have been a number of developments in cosmology within the last few years on this point, which are ongoing, so we should be careful, I think. There is a lot of empirical support for inflation, and theoretical proof has been offered that any version of inflation requires an astronomoical number of universes. So it may well be fairly well accepted in the coming years, depending on how things turn out.
EricG (#60) -- yes, observations in our universe can disclose anomalies that can be addressed with mathematical models that propose multiple universes. But those mathematical models are not empirically testable, because by definition we cannot observe alternate universes. As a result, there is a big debate about whether multiverse theories, including inflationary theories, really are "scientific" theories.
Note that I'm not suggesting that we need to be able to directly observe everything science is capable of theorizing about. Obviously, we can't directly observe anything that has happened in the past, but we can observe the effects of past events in the present and then make inferences from those effects. So, we can look at fossils, geology, etc., and reasonably conclude dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago. But we cannot really do the same with alternate universes, which would have very different physical laws than our own universe.
In any event, sure, it's possible that some version of a multiverse theory is correct, in which case the anthropic principle might not be such a great apologetic argument. But Douglas Adams' "puddle" analogy fails regardless. At present, it does indeed seem astonishing that we live in a universe so finely tuned to our existence.
Dopderbeck (#61),
You say "But those mathematical models are not empirically testable, because by definition we cannot observe alternate universes. As a result, there is a big debate about whether multiverse theories, including inflationary theories, really are "scientific" theories."
The way you state that is not exactly correct. There is no debate that inflation is a scientific theory, and it does make predictions that can be empirically verified. In fact, some of its predictions have been verified by the WMAP data.
And, as you know, the way science works is by testing various predictions of a theory; once it has predicted enough, it is generally accepted, even though each prediction has not been verified -- e.g., relativity. Granted, relativity has been tested more than inflation at this point, but if inflation gets to that point (and the evidence is still coming in), then it may reach that level. And if it does, and Alan Guth is right that multiple universes are a required prediction of any version of inflation, then I think folks will be hard pressed to say the idea of multiple universes is unscientific.
Its also not out of realm of possibility that the effects of multiple universes will be obverserved. Consideration has been given, for example, to whether the gaping hole in the WMAP background radiation was related to another universe. That hasn't been demonstrated by any means, but my point is that its also not entirely accurate to say that it would never be possible to observe the effects of other universes.
I agree that the puddle analogy does not work. I don't agree, however, that the evidence for fine tuning is astonishing, given the work being done on inflation. I worry that in 20 years cosomological fine tuning will be just another ID fad that has been demonstrated likely wrong.
First, I am really impressed by the thinking and reasoning of many of the posters here...I really enjoy reading the debate. Myself, I am highly skilled musically but my science and reasoning skills leave a bit of room for development so I find it difficult to follow the arguments unless I take an inordinate amount of time reviewing /learning all the jargon and concepts bantered here. Certainly changed since I last took a biology class in 1978!
My question is regards a term used by several posters ; Fine-tuned' with regards to the Universe being finely tuned for human existence.
When referring to the universe being 'finely-tuned for our existence is the definition imply that we are the consummate creation/product/by-product/ of that fine-tunig. That is..are we the reason for the fine-tuning or just a by-product of the fine-tuning?
In my mind perhaps the universe is actually more-finely tuned for some other life/non-life form that we are not aware of...but maybe it is fine-tuned enough to produce human life.
Is that a possibility or can we presume that humanity ...though still on an evolutionary track really is about the best we can expect from this particular universe?
Anyway, again, i really enjoy reading some of your posts, I rally admire your reasoning skills and knowledge!!
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.