Links
Science Issues

Redefining Science
the latest strategy to undermine science: change its definition to include the supernatural

A Critique of Intelligent Design
a brief explanation of Intelligent Design's utter lack of scientific and logical validity

The Faith of Creationism
why Creationism does not measure up to the standards of science

Creationists Announce New Theory of Gravity
long before The Onion's "Intelligent Falling" story, Minnesota Atheists offered this satirical take on I.D.

Resources for the Study of Evolution
use this thorough reference list to find websites, magazines, and books on the subject of evolution



Redefining Science
by Jack Caravela, copyright 2005

Much attention has been paid in the popular media to the Kansas School Board's inclusion of "intelligent design" in the state's science curriculum. However, less attention has been given to an even more ominous action taken by that board: the redefinition of science itself to include study of the supernatural. More troubling still, Kansas is not the only state to have diluted the definition of science in such a way; Ohio's science education standards are similar. 

Of course, the Kansas School Board wasn't so bold as to include the words "god" or "supernatural" in their new definition. Just as in the case of intelligent design, they have adopted the pose of making science "open to alternative points of view." This tactic conveys a false sense of inclusiveness and fairness; it is actually a wedge with which to insert religious teachings into public school science classes. 

Kansas's previous definition stated that "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us." The recently adopted replacement omits any mention of natural explanations. As Adrian Melott, a physics professor at the University of Kansas said, "The only reason to take out 'natural explanations' is if you want to open the door to supernatural explanations." Gerald Holton, a professor of the history of science at Harvard, quite correctly pointed out that when you remove those words, "anything goes."

Here in Minnesota, the Minnetonka School Board recently considered making a change to its science standards. The statement that the diversity of life "is the result of evolution" would have been removed under the proposal. Although one of the Board members who supported the change claimed that it would not introduce intelligent design, he maintained that the intent was to teach students that evolution is not fact but theory. The same tactic of employing a false sense of balance is seen here, only more narrowly focused. Under this faulty reasoning every scientific theory, including the theory of gravity and the theory of relativity, should carry its own disclaimer. (Fortunately for the students in Minnetonka, the change was defeated by a 4–2 vote.)

What Science Is (And Is Not)
True science cannot be ruled by dogma or influenced by sentiment. This is not to say that scientists (notably the very few who have adopted intelligent design's specious arguments) cannot be blinded by personal bias. But the scientific method demands rigorous testing, study, and exploration, and if the scientist's peers who are engaged in these activities cannot be won over, his or her theories do not gain acceptance. (No wonder, then, that the intelligent design crowd's strategy is to bypass peer review and appeal directly to the less informed public.)

Good science must work—it solves real problems and isn't averse to change. When facts are uncovered that are at odds with a scientific theory, that theory must be modified to accommodate them or be thrown out altogether in favor of a better one. Contrast this with religious zealots for whom the bible represents unchanging, unquestioned "truth," even when it is clearly contradicted by what we have learned through the scientific method.

Science does not claim to have all the answers, and it is hard to imagine that it will ever explain the totality of our staggeringly vast universe. But the lack of explanation for a specific detail does not invalidate a theory; instead it encourages research towards finding one without resorting to the imagined intervention of supernatural forces. When Copernicus theorized that the Earth and other known planets revolve around the Sun, resulting calculations of the positions of the planets were not accurate. But his theory still fit the facts better than the old idea of the Earth being the center of the universe, so Kepler persisted until he discovered Copernicus's error: planets move in elliptical orbits, not circular ones. (Galileo proved Kepler right with a new telescope of his own design.) Openness to new ideas is one of the great strengths of the scientific method, as long as those ideas do not betray its fundamental principles. 

Particularly in the past half-century, science has allowed us to reach beyond ourselves to make discoveries that would have been unachievable in any other way. Advances in our knowledge of the origin of the universe and in subatomic (quantum) physics could not have come about without science's ability to surpass human preconceptions. Some mind-boggling assertions have proven to be valid, showing us that simply because we cannot conceive of something doesn't make it false. Often those who seek to disparage science are those bound by limits of imagination. After all, it's much easier to imagine a omnipotent being at the controls than accept the physics of black holes and quantum mechanics, both of which contradict our own earthly experiences. As atheists we need to recognize this mindset as the same one that resulted in the creation of a sun god in ancient times.

The vast scope of science also reveals how extremely small our influence in the universe really is. How comforting to believe that we humans are special, created by an immaterial being who continues to watch over us. But when the tools of science are used to understand the universe better, it becomes increasingly obvious that this idea is an appealing fiction to allow us to reclaim our mythical position at the center of everything.

Why Science Matters
Imagine a scientific method of inquiry that allowed anything other than natural explanations. Whenever a phenomenon could not readily be explained, or whenever the natural explanation for it failed to satisfy the biases of a powerful religious interest group, it would be acceptable to hypothesize causes that could not be tested or proven wrong. The supernatural would be raised in stature to the equal of the natural, testable, and systematic process of science. Crackpot creationist teachings would receive the same standing as the sciences of cosmology, geology and biology, and public schools would be forced to include them in science classrooms.

One effect of this would be a loss of appreciation for the tremendous advantages of the scientific method and for the critical thinking and progress that it engenders. Without the scientific method, civilization would have hardly progressed past the middle ages. Anyone for the "good old days" of bubonic plague?

Perhaps even more important, a public that is ill educated in science cannot make informed decisions on many issues that society currently faces. From judging the validity of potential health hazards (such as the effects of pollution) and the benefits of medical treatments, to developing sensible public policies about stem cell research, human reproduction, and euthanasia, it is impossible to make informed choices without knowing at least some of the science behind them.

Thirty years ago Americans felt it was essential to be the world's leaders in science. Now we approach the frontiers of scientific research with one of two responses: apathy or distrust. If this continues we will fail to shape our own future, becoming bystanders while the rest of the world progresses beyond us. Even now, disinterest in science is spreading to the university level.  College administrators and business leaders are reporting that it has become difficult to find American students to pursue careers in advanced science. Instead Asian and European students are filling university classes and returning to their home countries with knowledge and skills that we need here.  (This is not xenophobia—foreign students should be able to attend the best American schools. It's the scarcity of American students pursuing cutting edge science that is disturbing.) 

It is sometimes tempting to attribute the problems of the modern world to science and technology, but it is the misuse of technology, usually motivated by greed, that is the real culprit. Science is a powerful tool, making it all the more important for us to understand it. Retreating down the path to ignorance (and willful ignorance at that) would make the world's present situation seem idyllic in comparison. As atheists who value critical thinking, we must educate ourselves and others in order to counteract those who would replace the scientific method with pseudoscience and bible-based mythology.

Thanks to Matthew Richardson for suggesting this article.

A Critique of Intelligent Design
by August Berkshire, copyright 2004

I am not a scientist, yet it doesn’t take one to understand why the scientific community rejects “Intelligent Design” theory, or ID.

ID consists of three parts, of decreasing scientific and logical validity. The first part is an attempted scientific critique of naturalistic evolution. However, at most, ID proponents are able to identify areas where there are gaps in our knowledge, not where there are contradictions in evolutionary theory. But science is a process: we do not start with all the answers, we must discover them.

Scientific conclusions are tentative, subject to revision by new evidence. Nevertheless, there are certain theories that scientists hold with a high degree of confidence. Among these are the heliocentric model of our solar system and evolution by means of mutation and natural selection. Apart from evolution, there is no other scientific theory with as much evidence supporting it that Christians would reject. This reveals a bias in Christianity, not a failure of evolution.

The second part of ID is its conclusion that some current gaps in our scientific knowledge will never be filled by naturalistic explanations. This assumes that ID proponents have complete knowledge of the future, which no one has.

The third part of ID is its claim that current gaps in our scientific knowledge can only be filled by a deity. (Few people accept the disingenuous claim that the “intelligent designer” is meant to be something other than a god.) This deus ex machina, this recycled god of the gaps, is not a logical nor scientific conclusion.

We have no evidence that a god or gods exist. We have no idea what a god is, what a god is composed of. We are told what a god isn’t – it’s not materialistic matter or energy – but we have no idea what it is. “Spirit” is not an answer because we don’t know what “spirit” is.

Furthermore, we have no idea how a god operates. We have no description of the mechanisms it uses. (“Magic” is not an answer. We must be able to explain the magician’s tricks.) We don’t even have an explanation of how a non-material being can interact with the material world. For these reasons, ID is not a testable hypothesis and does not fall within the realm of science.

Finally, while we assume that natural forces (gravity, electricity, etc.) operate without consciousness, we usually define a “supernatural” god as having consciousness of some type – thus making “god” a more complex explanation than blind natural forces.

Thus ID answers a mystery with a mystery. And, not only have we gained no knowledge, we have made the problem even more complex! As the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) stated, “to date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution.”

Christians may believe in theistic evolution – at least this does not contradict the scientific evidence – but they should realize that the “theistic” part is a matter of faith, not a logical conclusion.



The Faith of Creationism
by August Berkshire, copyright 2001

Creationists base their entire argument on trying to discredit evolution. Because there is no positive evidence for creationism, the typical creationist must have faith in the following eight things:

1. It is necessary to have complete physical evidence to totally explain every single aspect of the natural evolution of life in order for evolution to be accepted as true. According to creationists, if science has proven items A, B, C, D, F, G, H, I, and J, a pattern or sequence cannot be inferred until E is discovered.

2. Any gap in knowledge means the evidence doesn't exist and will never be discovered. Gaps automatically mean a non-evolutionary entity or force was at work.

3. The non-evolutionary entity or force responsible for life was supernatural in nature (as opposed to a different, undiscovered, natural explanation).

4. It is possible for supernatural entities or forces to exist.

5. It is possible for supernatural entities or forces to interact with the natural world.

6. It is possible for supernatural entities or forces to interrupt or violate the observed regularities ("laws") of nature.

7. The supernatural entity or force responsible for life was a god or gods.

8. In particular, it was the Judeo-Christian god of the Bible.

Not a single one of these eight leaps of faith has ever been proven to be true. Creationism is obviously a faith-based religion and should not be taught in public school science classrooms.



Creationists Announce New Theory of Gravity
by August Berkshire, copyright 1999

Today a spokesman for the Institute for Creative Research (I.C.R.), located in Fault Line, California, announced a new theory of gravity that contradicts traditional scientific explanations.

Dwayne Wish, head of the I.C.R., stated, "This is one of the most glorious days in the 6,000 year history of our universe. Finally, we have a theory of gravity that is just as sound as our theory of creation."

Wish went on to explain, "Most scientists think all forces ‚ such as gravity, electricity and magnetism ‚ originally came from a single, common force. They're currently searching in vain for a Grand Unification Theory. But there is no evidence of a common origin! They have never discovered any transitional forces! Where are the missing links?!

"Many scientists also believe gravity is caused by warped space or gravitons," Wish continued. "Has any scientist actually seen this? Was any scientist there when gravity first occurred? And yet they have the gall to claim gravity is part of nature! It is intellectually arrogant to assume gravity is a naturally occurring, rather than a supernaturally occurring phenomenon."

Asked what alternative the I.C.R. proposed, Wish smiled and said, "We're offering a much more plausible explanation for gravity: the Theory of Angelic Pressure. It should be obvious to any rational person that the universe is filled with invisible, undetectable angels who constantly push objects towards the Earth -- objects that would otherwise drift away!

"There is plenty of evidence for our theory," he continued. "For example, in spaceships objects float about randomly. They don't go toward each other unless at least one of them is pushed by an astronaut. This demonstrates that gravity works by design, not 'random chance'."

Asked what research the I.C.R. had done, Wish stated, "In Revelation 8:10 of the Holy Bible it says, 'And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven...' This is a clear reference to the fact that angels are responsible for gravity! In addition, many pagan books, such as the Koran and the Book of Mormon, are also filled with references to angels."

Wish went on to explain that although the Theory of Angelic Pressure is supported by the Bible, it is in no way based on it. "That¼s just a coincidence," he declared.

"Our theory of gravity cannot be disproven, so it should be taught in public schools," Wish continued. "Not to teach it is tantamount to censorship! Moreover, forcing students to believe a secular model of gravity is a violation of academic freedom and freedom of religion! Traditional scientists blithely ignore the axiom that all theories are equally valid."

When it was suggested there might be other equally valid theories, perhaps from other religions, that would explain gravity, Wish vehemently responded, "We have already discredited the 'other model' of gravity. It's obvious our Theory of Angelic Pressure is the only possible alternative.

"In fairness, students should be allowed equal time to hear our theory. Both models of gravity should be presented, then students can make up their own minds. At the very least, someone should take a public opinion poll to see if our theory is popular."

Wish explained that the I.C.R. was establishing a special division to further investigate their theory of gravity. "It's going to be called the Center for Research on Angelic Pressure," he said. "C.R.A.P."



Resources for the Study of Evolution

General


Magazines
Scientists
Geology
Evolution
Fossils
Scientific, Educational, Religious, and Non-religious Groups that Support Evolution
Specific Replies to Creationism
U.S. Supreme Court Decisions
Books
  • Darwin, Charles - The Descent of Man
  • Darwin, Charles - The Origin of Species
  • Dawkins, Richard - The Blind Watchmaker *
  • Dawkins, Richard - Climbing Mount Improbable
  • Dawkins, Richard - River Out of Eden
  • Dawkins, Richard - The Selfish Gene *
  • de Waal, Frans - Bonobo, the Forgotten Ape
  • de Waal, Frans - Chimpanzee Politics *
  • de Waal, Frans - Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals
  • Futuyma, Douglas J. - Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution *
  • Godfrey, Laurie R., ed. - Scientists Confront Creationists
  • Gould, Stephen J. - Bully for Brontosaurus
  • Gould, Stephen J. - The Panda's Thumb
  • Gould, Stephen J. - Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale
  • Jones, Steve - Darwin's Ghost: "The Origin of Species" Updated *
  • McGowan, Chris - In the Beginning: A Scientist Shows Why the Creationists are Wrong
  • McKown, Delos B. - The Mythmaker's Magic: Behind the Illusion of "Creation Science"
  • Miller, Kenneth R. [author is pro-god] - Finding Darwin¼s God
* Pennock, Robert T. - Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism *
  • Ruse, Michael - Taking Darwin Seriously *
  • Shapiro, Robert - Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life *
  • Strahler, Arthur N. - Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy *
  • Tiffin, Lee - Creationism's Upside-Down Pyramid
  • Wright, Robert - The Moral Animal *

_____________________________________
* These resources are especially good.