When Chemists Attack

The Greenville News has several things to say on the topic of science education in the Palmetto State. First, the good:

We fail the children of our state if we dilute science

Print it out, read it, paste it to the wall. (Of course, this is from a biology professor, so it’s no surprise that she’s for not teaching junk biology.)

Now, the not-so-good:

Scientists’ theories often wrongheaded (Scroll down – it’s a letter to the editor from one Gary Keener of Easley)

I have recently read a number of articles about conflicts due to the theory of evolution. I saw this week an article stating scientists were backing the teaching of this theory in public schools.

I wonder if the writer here realizes that to most scientists, teaching evolution in science class is no more controversial than, say, teaching atomic theory in chemistry class – or that the Earth is round and orbits the Sun in general science classes.

I would assume these are the same scientists who have predicted they would be able to duplicate major human body parts, slow down hurricanes and tornadoes and master human behavior. Unfortunately, many scientists have a history of opening their mouth before engaging their brain, so why would anyone be interested in what they think about the theory of evolution?

Mr Keener gets his science information, it seems, from old black and white sci-fi movies rather than from actual scientists. Do scientists sometimes make predictions that are wrong? Do scientists sometimes make overly optimistic predictions? Sure, they do. But some of this is part of science. An explanation (called a theory) in science must have explanatory and predictive power to be useful. If a theory is either not quite right or simply wrong, it will make predictions that are wrong. That’s the way the method works – theories that make incorrect predictions are revised or replaced by ones that make better predictions. The neat thing is this – science’s predictions tend to get better over time. Show me another field with a better track record – and real results.

Generally, the closer you are to the fringes of any particular scientific field, the shakier the science will be. Mr Keener apparently doesn’t realize that the theory of evolution is not fringe science. The theory of evoluition has been around in some published form since the publication of Darwin’s work in 1859 – and it’s been experimented on and refined ever since. Compare with the atomic theory in chemistry (1808). Does anyone seriously question the notion of the atom these days?

This theory has more holes in it than a baking sieve. Any educator who would justify teaching this garbage to our schoolchildren should never be elevated to a position of leadership in our public school system.

You will notice that none of these holes, which are supposed to be so obvious, will be pointed out.

Anyone who analyzes the complexity of the human body, and pinpoint placement of the earth in the universe, and concludes it just happened through some evolutionary process is not smart enough to make decisions about what students in school should be taught.

In answer, I’d say anyone who knows so little about evolutionary theory to suggest that it has anything to do with the placement of the Earth in the universe is not educated enough to make decisions about whether students should be taught evolutionary theory. (And just what the heck does Mr. Keener mean by “pinpoint placement”?) Even I, a humble chemist, know better.

Belief in God is the beginning of wisdom. You would think an educator would at least have this much wisdom.

Many, if not most, people who have no problem with evolutionary biology also believe in a god. There’s a whole group of people often called theistic evolutionists who believe that evolution was the mechanism used by their god to create the diversity of life we see on the planet.

So what’s Mr. Keener’s point again?

Charles Darwin, the individual who came up with the theory of evolution, raised some serious questions about the validity of his own theory later in life.

For one, the mechanism by which organisms inherited characteristics from their parents and the way that variation came about wasnt yet known. But this was also a long time ago – when the theory was new. Darwin didn’t have all the answers. (Neither do we, but we have improved evolution quite a bit since then.)

Someone said people become wiser just before they die. Maybe he was afraid he would have to face the God he had spent an entire life rejecting.

… or maybe Mr. Keener’s read one of those urban legend e-mails about Darwin having some kind of “deathbed conversion”?

A judge who would rule against the teaching of Divine Creation, but allow the teaching of a method of creation that is in direct conflict, should be classified as a judge with restricted vision.

I believe the bible says something about noticing the splinter in someone else’s eye without noticing the log in your own? Mr. Keener would do well to actually educate himself about what he’s calling “garbage” before criticizing scientists and educators.

From the Greenville News:

ID debate demands a look at all evidence

A letter on Jan. 18 questions whether scientific ideas that challenge the writer’s concept of “science” should be introduced into science classes. My answer is yes! Any scientist knows this is the only way science advances because all of its theories are ultimately tentative and must re- main open to challenge. Karl Popper called this “falsifiability.”

Ironically, the writer here has shot down the very idea (intelligent design) that he advocates. How does one falsify the idea that a divine being who is not subject to the laws of nature did … something to create or design life. You can’t. You can always say … “Well, my god still did it – just using your method.” or “Well, however it is, it’s like that because my god designed it that way.”

Like the letter writer, I believe in God and in science. Unlike the letter writer, I believe the only source of truth is God. Man is dismally unable to arrive at truth by himself. This is adequately demonstrated by believing that only “science” belongs in science classes.

Well what else would the writer suggest goes there? Should I barge into my college’s English classes and demand that chemistry be taught? Or barge into a local church demanding the teaching of physics? There is a reason it’s called science class…

But the scientific method itself addresses the writer’s point. It’s self-correcting, so we can get closer and closer to what’ right over time. And it gives results – which is why you can read this post on a computer right now. (This is also why we feel the need to teach science to people. Because it works!)

Skipping a bit…

Yet most evolutionists adamantly deny intelligent design has anything to do with the origin of species. So which is it — does evolution depend on intelligence or upon chance?

False dichotomy. Unless you believe that there can be no order without design (and therefore that your god is really, really busy making sure all the atoms line up in a cubic structure in each and every crystal of table salt you put on your French fries), then new structures can come about partially by random events and partially by the rules of the universe. Evolution might have some random elements, but it isn’t an entirely random process. Selction sure isn’t random! (How about those antibiotic-resistant bacteria?)

Now if you want to say that your god made up the rules, well then why bother trying to stifle the teaching of evolution – and waste time in an already overloaded science class with the notion? Just teach that in your church.