For those of us who care deeply about science literacy and who work to create an appropriate, and respectful, understanding between science and religion, Rick Perry's entry into the Republican presidential race offers both good and bad news.
On the positive side, Perry has decided not to run away from his past. With the exception of his position on vaccinations for the human papillomavirus, he is embracing rather than distancing himself from his previous record making it very easy to recognize where he stands.
On the negative side, his past record clearly demonstrates both a dangerous misunderstanding of the nature of science and a willingness to jettison science when its conclusions are at odds with his politics.
Perry's stance on the theory of evolution is especially troubling and emblematic of his overall disdain for modern science. Simply put, Perry's position either represents willful ignorance of both science and the law or demonstrates that he lacks basic knowledge that fifth graders should have.
Just this past Thursday in New Hampshire, in response to a child's question, Perry described evolution as "a theory that's out there" and one that's "got some gaps in it." His latest statement is remarkably similar to what his office wrote to a Texas voter in 2006 when questioned about intelligent design: "Recognizing that evolution is a theory, and not claimed by anyone to be more than that, the governor believes it would be a disservice to our children to teach them only one theory on the origin of our existence without recognizing other scientific theories worth consideration."
As any well-educated fifth grader could tell you, in science, a "theory" is as good as it gets. Although "theory" in common parlance means nothing more than a guess, in science it means something very different. An idea rises to the level of theory in science only after numerous, independent tests have been performed and have yielded consistent data. A scientific theory offers insight into the natural world while making predictions about the structure of the natural world. Scientific theories permit us to make sense of random facts.
Because science proceeds by disproof rather than proof, in other words because science is reliant on the concept of falsifiability, scientists must be open to the possibility that a commonly accepted theory might, at some time in the future, be replaced by a more finely tuned or more robust theory. But being open to the possibility of future work modifying and improving our present theories is a far cry from saying that something is "just a theory" and thus not deserving of any special attention.
Why does it matter if we understand the nature of science? What's the difference if we, as a society, refuse to accept what it means when a scientific concept rises to the level of theory? Ken Miller, in his 2008 book "Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul," made the case more succinctly and more articulately than I could. Writing about William F. Buckley's attack on evolution, he said:
In many ways, I think that William F. Buckley misunderstood evolution, and he certainly misunderstood the nature of science. There is indeed a soul at risk in America's "evolution wars," but it is not the cultural one that Buckley sought to save. Rather, it is America's scientific soul, its deep and long-standing embrace of discovery, exploration, and innovation, that is truly at risk. That is why the stakes in this struggle are far greater than the wording of curriculum standards or the nature of textbook passages on the Cambrian fauna. The choice we face as a nation is nothing less than whether we will continue to be the world's scientific leader or quietly watch as the torch of discovery is lifted from our hands.
Amazingly, Perry's position on evolution actually does even more damage than did Buckley's. By unabashedly tying creationism to evolution as co-equals, Perry dismisses decades of established legal precedent and he marginalizes the religious mainstream in America in favor of those who demand that a particular fundamentalist perspective shape our legal and educational system.
In response to that same New Hampshire student mentioned above, Perry proudly claimed that Texas teaches both creationism and evolution. That view is consistent with how his office responded to a constituent's question in 2005: "The governor does not oppose presenting creationism alongside evolution in discussions about the origins of mankind."
The problem with this position is that it flies in the face of decades of legal precedent set by federal district courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. Creationism in all of its guises, including intelligent design, has consistently been legally determined to be nothing more than religious dogma and thus been outlawed from a place in public school science classrooms and laboratories.
What Perry's statements do demonstrate, however, is that the oft-repeated mantra by the Texas State Board of Education and its allies that they're not promoting creationism but rather encouraging students to be critical thinkers is nothing more than vapid verbiage. Perry makes it abundantly clear that the goal was to indoctrinate students with creationism rather than teaching them to carefully assess scientific arguments.
Perry and the creationists he speaks for reject evolution on religious rather than scientific grounds. Their narrow religious perspective dictates that scientific consensus be dismissed in favor of one very specific reading of an ancient religious text. In contradistinction to Perry and his ilk, there are many whose religious faith is strong enough to embrace the findings of science. Indeed, the thousands upon thousands of religious leaders who have endorsed The Clergy Letter Project have absolutely no problem accepting, understanding and celebrating modern evolutionary theory while promoting the deeply held tenets of their religion.
If Rick Perry had his way, both science and religion would be greatly diminished and we would move ever deeper into a Dark Age in which critical thought about complex issues would be pushed off the table.
Follow Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mzclergyletter
Steven Newton: Can Teachers Criticize Creationism in Class?
Jeff Schweitzer: Faith and Reason, Science and Politics
That said, I don't care who believes what in their homes or churches. It, however, does not belong in the science classroom or in the law books.
"I'm troubled by people like Zimmerman who say that science is a closed system and only approved theories are allowed in and other theories are locked out."
I think you need to go back and read the article again. I find nowhere in the article where he said science was a closed system. What he spoke of was the methods by which science comes to their theoretical conclusions. Theories are neither "approved" or "rejected" merely due to their subject. It is obvious you are mistaking theory with hypothesis. An hypothesis is an idea that is put forth as an explanation for a certain phenomenon. Only after it has been tested and retested for falsifiability, then peer reviewed, does it become a theory. ID (creationism) can not be put under such rigorous testing. ID requires faith, nothing more.
I thought Perry recommended teaching Evolution and Intelligent Design side-by-side and to use your own intelligence to decide which one stands.
I'm troubled by people like Zimmerman who say that science is a closed system and only approved theories are allowed in and other theories are locked out.
The same scientists who hold the keys to acceptable theories once estimated the mass of the universe and now realize what was 100% is actually 10% and the remaining 90% is something they were not aware of - dark matter. Instead of being 100% correct they were only 10% correct.
-----
He may have recommended it, but it is not allowed. Evolution is a scientific theory whereas Intelligent Design is nothing more than an underhanded renaming of Creationism and is therefore a part of a belief system; i.e., religion. For that reason, IG is not allowed to be taught in public school systems. That is what churches, synagogues, temples, et.al. are for. Would you like it if your church were forced to teach Evolution side by side with the Biblical story of creation? Didn't think so. Besides, evolution and creationism have nothing to do with each other. That like saying puppy dogs can't exist because mushroom do. One does not necessarily rule out the other. Evolution says nothing about the creation of the universe or life. It only pertains to the developmental progression of life once it had begun. Abiogenisis would be the alternative to creationism as to the beginning of life from inorganic materials. Cosmology would be the study of the beginning of the universe. Please learn these words and their differences.
Please re-read the 6th and 7th paragraph above. Science is not a closed system. In fact it's the exact opposite. Following the scientific method, any and all data is taken into account. Theories are peer reviewed. Hypothesies that are falisfied are tossed aside. The fact that new data may change a current model is considered a good thing as it means we are learning.
- Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet
Peer reviewed is a tool for excluding those hypothesis that the establishment wants outside the closed system.
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/read-prove-god-exists/
By continually (falsely) stating that hundreds of scientists believe in ID, and that it deserves equal scientific consideration as any tested scientific theory, you start to confuse the masses who haven't researched the topic. If you learn about the history of the textbooks that were trying to get ID into classrooms, you invariable reach the same conclusion as the courts did. And that is that Intelligent Design = Creationism = Religion.
WV #1: Premise #1: There is no need for a supernatural God because nature can perform the same function. Premise #2: The earth is old to allow time for evolution to "work".
WV #2: Premise #1: There is a supernatural God. Premise #2: The earth is young.
Each of these WVs come from different Truth algorithms. So the clash is messy. Those who believe in WV#2 try to involve themselves in WV#1 algorithms; however, their training is in WV#2 truths, so they don't present their cases "correctly" in WV#1 mode. Angel1999 gave me an example: ID can't be disproved, and therefore, is not considered scientific, not because of its lack of predictability but because of its impossibility of being disproved. Science education has done a poor job in explaining the difference between theory and laws as evidenced by many of the discussions here. So WV#2 is attempting to present arguments justifying their positions in terms that WV#1 will accept. They are coming from different points on the knowledge ray. WV#1 begins w/ 0 knowledge, WV#2 begins with God's omniscience. This knowledge ray point of view is key in understanding both sides. Relished inside this discussion is confusion from both sides tallying the # of scientists that believe one theory or another. Where is the science in that?
now who cares if this theory is even a truth. so what? this is the evolution of the physical. one look at nature and one can see much of this evoultionary process. we are physical creatures of nature.
besides he wants the creation folks votes. he is a politician that will say and do anything to first win the repub primary then on to national votes for president. at least obama did not say anything to win votes. the yes we can guy that became no we cant. trust none of them they are bought and paid for politicians by a very corrupt political and reelection system.
study the evolution of the consciousness process and the evolution of the physical becomes just a science project. ie not that big of deal.
as long as those scientists think the brain and consciousness are synonyms they are a member of this materialistic herd effect. it is as powerful as the creation folks dogma. :-)
First he wants to secede from the country. Next he wants to govern the entire country.
First he's for allowing states the right to determine same-sex marriage laws. Next he wants a Constitutional amendment to deny states that right.
Round and round we go -- where Perry will land next, who knows?
The upcoming election really worries me. More so than ever, it appears it's going to come down to the lesser of two evils.
She's for the states having rights to determine same-sex marriage laws.
And she's for a Constitutional amendment to bar those rights.
That's Michele "The Weathervane" Bachmann -- for anything that will get her a vote or two.
What doesn't work is to stack schoolboards to press an untested theory.
Huntsman has said he accepts the science behind evolution and climate change. That alone isn't enough to justify voting for him but at least it's a step in the right direction... for a republican. Course it also probably means no one from the far right will vote for him either.
i'm anxious for your links to these scientifics papers that were pulled and the revocations of degrees.
Yep. That's precisely what it is. An attempt in the good old exercise of dumbing down people.
Well, as you say, if Perry gets his way with this, the torch of discovery and innovation will be taken out of America's hands. Simple as that.
Does anyone notice that this is bad for business? I didn't think so. The future of America is feudalism, didn't y'all know that?
Which is great, because nobody will invade a feudalist nation, so America will be safe on top of that.
On the other hand, it might be simpler and better for everybody involved (which in this case, would be: everybody) to simply let Texas secede, even if that's currently illegal. The world would say thank you.