Poking around on WIS-TV’s web site, I find this article from a couple of weeks ago about the teaching of science in the South Carolina schools.
Biology students learn about Darwin’s evolution theory at South Carolina schools. But should they be taught other theories, too, like intelligent design, the idea that Darwin’s theory cannot explain all of life’s mysteries?
What’s that sound? I think it’s the sound of the heads of many biologists exploding.
The question is a bit revealing, though … Intelligent design is “the idea that Darwin’s theory cannot explain all of life’s mysteries.” It’s the intellectual equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting “Nuh-uh!!!” when you hear something you don’t like.
On the one side, there’s biological evolution – which explains how forms of life got from self-replicating molecules to here, gives possible mechanisms for change in organsims, etc. etc. And on the other side, there’s intelligent design: “Nuh-uh!” At least it’d be a short lesson.
Scrolling on down in the article, we find this gem from an intelligent design advocate:
[…] Rebecca Keller agrees, “A teacher must also allow students the academic freedom to think for themselves, and should not discriminate against any viewpoint.”
True, students must be allowed to think. (Does any teacher out there, at any grade level from K through college, want their students to not think?) But in science, all viewpoints are not equal. That’s the whole point of the scientific method, actually – to discriminate between different viewpoints (explanations) of data and pick the one that is most correct. Not all viewpoints are equal in science because some viewpoints are simply wrong. Still other viewpoints are worthless in science because they lack explanatory power.
Let’s say that on an introductory chemistry test I ask my students to describe the current scientific understanding of the burning of wood in air. Should all these answers be marked correct?
- The wood combines with oxygen from the air to form primarily carbon dioxide and water (along with some other stuff in the ash). This means that the fire could be extinguished or prevented by removing oyxgen from the air around the wood or covering the wood with an inert gas that would prevent oxygen from reaching the wood (and thus stop the fire).
- That wood burns by releasing a substance called phlogiston. All substances that burn contain this phlogiston, and thus ashes are lighter than the original wood that they came from.
- Fire is cast down upon wood by the fire faeries as punishment for the sins committed by trees against the green faeries of the forest.
Obviously, not all of these viewpoints are correct. Phlogiston theory has few backers these days, and I just made up the “faery theory of combustion” a minute ago without a shred of supporting scientific evidence.
Should I waste time presenting the “faery theory of combustion” in my introductory chemistry class? Surely not, except perhaps as a good example of what a scientific theory is not. The “faery theory” doesn’t explain anything at all. It might make a good bedtime story, but it’d be lousy science.
Just like some other “theory” I know …