'Consensus Science'? Please!!
Published August 30, 2005
Alright, here is my second post in a row on the issue of "Intelligent Design." If you want to know more of what ID is all about, then please read my previous post on the subject, "Intelligent Design is Everyday Science."
I'm posting this in response to a rather reactionary piece posted to one of my favorite online Mags, National Review Online (NRO). As a matter of fact, it is one of the few publications to which I subscribe — the WSJ and the NY Times being two others.
That said, an article by John Derbyshire, "Teaching Science: The President is wrong on Intelligent Design," was SO poorly written, that I wanted to at least post my counter-points to Mr. Derbyshire's arguments. It's not my purpose to call Mr. Derbyshire names or engage in ad hominem attacks upon him, he is, after all, a real journalist, whereas I'm just a blogger.
An avid blogger to be sure, but a mere blogger none-the-less.
And just to clarify, I'm not trying to be sarcastic in referring to Mr. Derbyshire as a "real journalist." He is that, and I've read many of his articles and agreed with him on many points. But on the issue of Intelligent Design (ID), I must conclude that he is, unfortunately, regurgitating arguments and talking points which he's acquired from defenders of the Darwinian Faith. And truly, many aspects of Darwinism must be taken on faith, as I will discuss in this post.
So, in his article, when Mr. Derbyshire calls ID a "psuedoscience" and compares it to crackpot theories which are religious or mystical in nature, I can only assume that he knows little of ID theory but has chosen merely to slam it based on comments from those who are earnestly seeking to derail a robust and increasingly popular theory related to the origins of life. But lets exam just Mr. Derbyshire's arguments and talk to them:
- Mr. Derbyshire tries to quell the debate over the whether ID should be taught in schools by referring to the need for "Consensus Science" in the classrooms. Consensus science? Sounds to me more like "bureacratic science," or "democratic science," if you want to give the whole concept a positive spin. In other words, sounds like institutional thinking to me. When I Googled the term "Consensus Science" I found that nearly the entire first page of returned links were all to articles, speeches, and blog posts from academics and others who were, in no uncertain terms, denouncing this concept altogether. Michael Crichton says this of consensus science:
- 'Consensus Science'? Please!!
- Published: August 30, 2005
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Culture
- Writer: David Flanagan
- David Flanagan's BC Writer page
- David Flanagan's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
"At the very least, lets teach the controversy. Darwinian Evolution is a theory, and MUST be taught as such. If you want to REALLY confuse kids, try teaching philosophy or religion in the science classroom. That is what proponents of evolution want. They don't want sound, reasoned debate and a realistic look at the science, they want dogmatism."
What a bunch of crap! I just spent the week preparing 8th graders for my State's standard Science test. You want to know what the first thing we reviewed was? The SCIENTIFIC METHOD! It's really simple, try and keep up if you can!
1. Identify your problem
2. Research
3. Form a hypothesis
4. Develop procedures to test your hypothesis
5. Analyze the data
6. Draw concludions
7. Repeat ad nauseum!
The real "controversy" the ID proponents are asking us to teach is, "do we throw out the SCIENTIFIC METHOD or not?!"
Next we reviewed electromagnetism. I explained to them that lightning was, "the handy work of ZEUS, casting bolts of electricity down upon us hapless mortals!" Guess what, they told ME that this was not a scientific argument because there was no use of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD! Then we got down to some good old fashioned scientific dogmatism-we conducted actual experiments in class. I had students generating electricity and turning electric current into magnets in no time. Zeus never showed up though. Intelligent Designers-they just aren't emperical when you need 'em!
Once you start teaching evolution in church, then get back to me about ID in schools.
I know of few churches that discuss evolution or creation in the context of the current debate and of those that do, it seems they are split 50/50 on it. The Christian community is not as monolithic as some evolutionists think it is. But then again, neither is the scientific community. You Yanks sure do make this so black & white when oftentimes things are a bit more complicated...I wonder if it is a direct result of having a two party system...but that's another topic.
JR,
A consensus generally means a majority, doesn't mean there can't be significant disagreement, and it's obvious that disagreement is on the increase in recent years.
well there's this and I think it's relevant:
Proof of the theory
consensus
NOUN: The quality or condition of being in complete agreement or harmony: unanimity, unanimousness.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/35138)
David Flanagan: I won't argue on the point that Darwinism is the consensus science of our age when it comes to origin of life theories.
and
How can it be "true" and "right" if so many in their own discipline disagree?
Um...
never mind.