'Consensus Science'? Please!!
Published August 30, 2005
I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks.
Emeritus Professor Garth Paltridge, retired Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, and former Chief Research Scientist of the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research says this:
Consensus is not science. Consensus tends to the politically correct. Consensus is not the sort of thing on which sensible people put their money.
So, while this concept might sound reasonable on its face, really the concept of consensus science is more of an oxymoron than a school of thought. Ultimately, teaching only consensus science must result in the stagnation of science itself. Science must only rely on facts, not on opinion. Which is why, if there is true science behind ID theory, as I've explained, then it can be legitimitely taught in the classroom.
Ironic that I, a proponent of ID theory, should be reminding Mr. Derbyshire of the way science is supposed to work, don't you think?
Nuff said there.
And what should we teach our kids in biology classes, concerning the development of living things on earth? We should teach them Darwinism, on exactly the same arguments. There is no doubt this is consensus science... It means teaching science unskeptically, as settled fact.
I won't argue on the point that Darwinism is the consensus science of our age when it comes to origin of life theories. What I will argue, however, is whether or not all of Darwinian Evolution is based in science.
The questions I constantly ask and challenge readers to ask as well are along the lines of, why is Darwinism so dogmatically defended by some, even to the point of forcing out all other viewpoints from the debate? Also, why does evolution remain so controversial, even among evolutionary scientists, biologists, geneticists, and the like. In your attempts to answer these quesions, here are a few points to consider:
- There must be MORE than merely a critical mass of scientists willing to question a prevailing theory. There must also be a viable alternative theory which better explains certain phenomenon in a measurable way. Can ID Theory do this? Absolutely, but not if it is to be censored like the "round Earth" theory was a thousand years back!
- Should darwinism, as Mr. Derbyshire argues, be taught "conservatively [emphasis his], without skepticism or equivocation," so as not to "confuse young minds"? Well, if it were considered a law, like Gravity, or some other scientific approach which is measurable, sure. But evolution is still a theory for a reason. So, in that light, Mr. Derbyshire's comment almost sounds as if he's asking us not to confuse those "young minds" with the facts.
- '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.