> Beg pardon, but my understanding of evolutionary theory, as a
> non-scientist, is that evolution has been "raised . . . beyond the level
> of theory" in the same way that Copernicianism has: until something else
> comes along that more adequately explains the facts, the "theory" of
> evolution is valid. Or, to make sure that this remains roughly on an
> acceptable topic, so long as courts and law school profs accept Chief
> Justice Marshall's formulation in 1803 and do not challenge whether
> judicial review reflects original intent, it remains valid.
I don't understand this, and will expose my ignorance to the world in
the hope of being instructed by those with a better education in
philosophy of science than I have.
My understanding of the Copernican "theory" is that the earth
revolves around the sun, rather than vice versa. Sandy Levinson says
that this is "theory laden," but I don't understand why. I can
understand why, from an earthly vantage point, the sun *appears* to
revolve about the earth, and I can understand why, from a Biblical
standpoint, it might seem to make sen!
se that
the earth is the center
of the Universe; but once we have access to a vantage point outside
of the earth and the sun, it there any room for doubt that Copernicus
was right? Is there any competing theory that accounts for the
sensory data? If the claim that the earth revolves around the sun is
a "theory," then is it equally a "theory" that food assuages hunger,
or that I have three children?
Darwinian evolution, it seems to me, is an entirely different sort of
"theory." The point of the theory, for present purposes, is that the
complexity of life forms came about by natural, materialistic means,
through chance variation and natural selection. Now, as even the work
of evolutionary biologists tells us, it remains rather unclear
precisely how this occurred; no one knows how life itself began (one
prominent biologist says it must have arrived from outer space, a
theory no more scientific than Genesis 1); there are surprisingly few
Darwin's original conception, that small changes over an incredibly
long time gradually produced the current state of life forms, is
clearly inconsistent with the evidence; different biologists offer
different theories in an attempt to account for as much of the
evidence as possible.
(This is quite different from the Copernican theory, which as far as
I know perfectly accounts for the evidence. There is no
sensory evidence suggesting that the sun revolves around the earth.
There is, by contrast, lots of evidence that even the best theories
of evolutionary biology cannot account for. That is why biology is
such a lively and exciting field--though in my opinion it would be
even livelier and more exciting if it were less defensive.)
My view is that biologists should carry on with their scientific
task: trying to devise a naturalistic explanation that comports with
the
evidence. Whatever appears, at any given point in time, to be the
*best* naturalistic theory, should be taught as such. But unless and
until biologists come up with a theory that truly explains the
evidence (as the Copernican "theory" explains the evidence), there is
room for doubt. The anti-evolutionist may continue to conclude that
the alternative explantion--design--is more persuasive. Since the
alternative theory cannot be directly proven or disproven (and hence
is not "scientific" under some definitions of that term), the
plausibility of the theory of design must be judged on the basis of
the plausibility (or implausibility) of the best naturalistic theory.
As long as the best naturalistic theory has so many gaps, it is not
unreasonable or unscientific for people to be skeptical of it.
The theory of design is *not* parallel to Ptolemaic astronomy. The
claim that the sun revolves around the earth is inconsistent with the
dat!
a. The
claim that life forms were the product of design is not
inconsistent with the data.
Creationists should not be hostile to the work of evolutionary
biology. If the creationists are correct about the world, the
biologists will never come up with a plausible naturalistic
explanation. The only way to find out is to let them do their
work. The only legitimate complaint on the creationists' part has to
do with the way science is taught in the schools, which should avoid
dogmatism and inaccuracy. Scientists should be for that, too.
It seems to me that the evolutionary controversy is a great
opportunity for high schools to explain to their students both the
nature of the scientific enterprise and the limits of science. I
think that science educators are so frightened by and hostile toward
"creationists" that they retreat into an unscientific dogmatism
rather than give their "opponents" an inch. No scientist should ever
be embarra!
ssed to
admit that we don't know everything and can't
explain everything and that other, wildly different, explantions may
ultimately prove more persuasive than the current best theory.
I do not know whether the North Carolina bill puts the matter as
precisely or usefully as it could and should; probably not. But to
insist on treating the "theory" of evolution (which in fact consists
of numerous competing theories) as "fact" is not pedagogically responsible."
As always, well said, Mike.
Cheers, Rick
Rick Duncan
Welpton Professor of Law
University of Nebraska College of Law
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
