On Monday, January 25, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Biology Education (NCBE) spoke at CSU (promo blurb). A panel discussion followed on the state of science education with Dr. Scott, some CSU profs, and some local science teachers participating. I also had the opportunity to have breakfast with Dr. Scott the following morning. Here are a few reactions.
Dr. Scott went out of her way to distinguish between religion and science. Surprisingly (to me), she from the outset made room for religion. When asked explicitly about her religious faith later in the Q&A, she distanced herself from the question and claimed that it had no place in this forum. This was a talk about science education and not about her private religious beliefs. It seemed clear to me that the questioner was pushing for a “Darwinian evolution leads to atheism” type position and Dr. Scott refused to go there. The talk was sponsored in part by a new student group at CSU, Leaders in Free Thought (LIFT), who were probably disappointed with all of this. I was glad to see it and it clearly set the tone of the rest of the talk. Given this I could have seen a local ASA chapter (not yet existent) or our CSU Christian Faculty Network help sponsor this talk.
Interestingly, during the panel discussion this thread was continued. The question of religious belief came up again and all of the panelists were quick to say that education about evolution had nothing necessarily to do with religious belief. One panelist was a self-admitted religious person but from a non-Christian perspective. During the panel Q&A a couple of apparent evangelical questioners asked about how the teachers handled or should handle students who were convinced young-earth creationists (YEC) or intelligent design (ID) advocates. Somewhat shocking to me, all agreed that the issue was not whether the students agreed with what they were being taught, but whether they understood the material. Frankly, I was pleased to hear this and was glad that public school educators respected the private opinions of their students and their families. Their goal was to teach science (at least the content side–there was a significant emphasis on the importance of teaching scientific methodology) as what scientists currently think.
There was a certain inconsistency, however, and I attempted to raise this in the Q&A time. I’m not sure I was clear, because the responses were somewhat generic. Both Dr. Scott’s talk and the panel began with a reference to surveys that indicated that most Americans don’t accept evolution and that this indicated a failure of American science education. The inconsistency that I see is that “accepting evolution” doesn’t seem to be the goal of science education if all that is important is that students understand what scientists think. Thus, the framing of the question is critical here. Is the question “Do you accept evolution?” or “Do you understand evolution?” The only answer I got was that in polls the framing of the question is critical.
I’d be curious about what ASAers think about this issue. Is the goal of science education (at least the content side) merely knowing what scientists think or is it accepting it as true (within the limitations that all scientific knowledge has a certain tentativity to it)? At what point in the science education or science practice process does the requirement that scientists accept the conclusions of science kick in? Granting of the Ph.D.? Granting of tenure? Peer review? Obviously, the answers differ depending on the institution and the nature of the research journal.
The title of Dr. Scott’s lecture was “Not Over After Dover” and was a review of the various court rulings forbidding the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in the public school. While in general I am not very sympathetic with demarcationist arguments and I’m not at all convinced that the current views of separation of church and state are the right interpretation of the Constitution, I was nearly in total agreement with the scientific arguments presented (critical of YEC and ID). Her clear definition of evolution, her distinction between common ancestry and various mechanisms of evolution, and her rebuttals of Dembski and Behe were all things that I agreed with and have used in my own presentations. In general, I would call NCBE a friend of ASA.
I had two pieces of advice for Dr. Scott.
1. That she recognize that the search for and recognition of intelligent agents is scientific. After all, her background is physical anthropology. Anthropology, archaeology, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI), forensics, etc. are all scientific. Social and human sciences all deal with intelligent agents. Admit it, and then explain why ID is different. When I mentioned this, her response was positive. Her explanation had to do with the identity and scientific accessibility of the designer. We recognize ID because we are familiar with designers that design similar things. All the disciplines mentioned follow that pattern. I think this is close to what Randy Isaac is getting at in his review of Meyer’s Signature in the Cell (most recent post in that series). God as designer is unlike any designer we know. Not only is his handiwork designed, he upholds and controls the very substances things are made of, the laws that govern it all, and any evolutionary history that may have led to their being.
2. That she appeal to evangelical supporters of evolution (ASA, Francis Collins, Denis Lamoureux, B.B. Warfield, John Stott, perhaps Tim Keller, etc.). Appeal to Roman Catholic or even mainline Protestant thinkers, doesn’t really help convince an evangelical. The evangelical needs to see fellow evangelicals that they trust in order to move ahead here. Appeal to Catholic or possibly theologically liberal theologians does no good. Even appeal to ASA, Collins, Lamoureaux, and others willing to “give up” a historical Adam and Eve or a historical Fall will not be accepted. While I’m not questioning anyone’s evangelicalism in saying this, it is largely the case that once you have given up a historical Adam and Eve that many (maybe most) evangelicals will suggest that you have moved significantly in the direction toward the theological liberal. The fact that there are examples of thinkers on this issue who don’t do this (Warfield, Stott, Keller, myself, etc.) will enable some to accept evolution. Dr. Scott agreed with my assessment here but pointed out that her motivation was primarily to show that accepting evolution was not inherently atheistic. In other words, it was part of her setting the context that being pro-evolution is not to be anti-religious.
I have always been impressed by Dr. Scott myself. Yes — she is sometimes less clear than I’d like. I suspect that is because we define certain words a bit differently.
I don’t think that even limiting the discussion to evangelicals who accept evolutionary processes and/or an old Earth will be successful. Note this case in point. Here we have Bill Dembski who is an Old Earth Creationist who gives a sympathetic reading to TEs. This caused his Baptist faith to be questioned. Note Dembski’s self defense:
As long as ID proponents let themselves be used as a way to deny evolution by YECs then everything’s OK. But if they make the more subtle argument that they only oppose purposeless and undesigned evolution then they get attacked just as much as us. No wonder they mumble about the age of the earth and common descent.
@Richard Blinne
No doubt this is true for some, especially if they are YEC. A non-literal Genesis 1 is not an option there, but I suspect that there are many evangelicals willing to acknowledge at non-literal Genesis 1, but unwilling to acknowledge at non-historical Adam and Eve (I, for one, sounds like Dembski, and Keller).
I am glad to hear that the NCBE is encouraging an emphasis on scientific methodology. During my public high school education (1998-2001), science was always presented as a completed body of knowledge. Of course current research was expanding the frontiers of science, but there was little sense that new data could alter an existing model/theory. Science education at this level will be much improved if students are taught how to think scientifically rather than how to memorize large amounts of material.
@Terry M. Gray
My point was not about promoting yours or Tim Keller’s viewpoint as I happen to agree with both of you. I believe it’s important for evangelical TEs (and even evangelical OECs) to make our presence known.
Rather, my point is whether Eugenie Scott should promote evangelical TEs. If Bill Dembski saying nice things about evangelical TEs is radioactive what do you think having Eugenie Scott praise us would do!
What I find strange, though, is how unimportant whether the proponents of the various positions are evangelical or not. It seems to be more about whether you are pro or anti evolution. For example, evangelicals will readily accept the Catholic Behe and even the Moonie Wells or the agnostic Berlinski. During the Truth Project three people were interviewed with respect to Darwin’s finches, Kenneth Miller, Jonathan Wells, and David Berlinski. Immediately following this Del Tackett concluded that people accept evolution not because they find the evidence compelling but because they didn’t want to accept the existence of God. This was even when the Christian was pro evolution and the non (orthodox) Christians were against it!
Terry wrote:
“Dr. Scott agreed with my assessment here but pointed out that her motivation was primarily to show that accepting evolution was not inherently atheistic. In other words, it was part of her setting the context that being pro-evolution is not to be anti-religious.”
I disagree. I left Christianity largely (but not the only reason) because I saw no way to integrate evolution coherently into theology. I think the best attempt at it is Denis Lamoureux’s work.
I think Dr. Scott is not being completely open because she doesn’t want to acknowledge how “acidy” and corrosive evolution is to theology. Her primary goal is to keep evolution in, and ID (and creationism) out of schools.
I love it when academic presenters are open and honest and answer all questions. It bothers me when people refuse to answer questions. And when someone asks about her faith, it is relevant to this subject.
I went to a Bart Ehrman lecture. He’s an academic critic of the Bible. I asked him some personal religious questions, and he was totally open and transparent. It was very endearing.
…Bernie (Friend of the ASA)
A comment on Terry’s observation that “it is largely the case that once you have given up a historical Adam and Eve that many (maybe most) evangelicals will suggest that you have moved significantly in the direction toward the theological liberal. “ Last week I was one of the presenters at a “Science for Ministry” conference at Asbury Seminary, & my experience there confirms what Terry said. “Historical Adam” seemed to be the article by which the church stands or falls for some there. (Not any of the presenters or Asbury faculty, I should add!) & that suggests to me that some effort needs to be made to enlighten evangelicals about what “evangelical” means – or should mean: Centered on the gospel of Jesus Christ. These people simply have their priorities wrong.
I am very interested in the comments from Terry Gray and George Murphy, concerning the issue of an historical Adam. In my experience both personally as an evangelical Christian in various congregations and also as an historian of Christianity and science, this issue has been and remains central for many evangelicals–American evangelicals, at least. I am not convinced that it is also true to the same degree for evangelicals in the UK.
For me, the crucial theological issues dividing “liberal” from “conservative” or “orthodox” Christians, relative to God & nature & humanitiy, have to do with having adequate understandings of *both* divine transcendence and divine immanence, and for me these come to the fore most of all in our understanding of the incarnation and resurrection events. If God did not truly become one of us–in which case Jesus was *a great deal more than* simply a human being who trusted his heavenly father–then Christianity is not true. Likewise, if Jesus was not raised bodily from the grave into a new kind of existence that we will also share with him in the new kingdom (Jesus was the “first fruits of them that slept”), then Christianity is not true.
The problem I have with “liberal” Christians from the past (especially the period surrounding the Scopes trial in 1925) and present (I think here of some leading voices in the modern “dialogue” of science and religion) is that they did not and do not believe those things: that is, they did not and do not believe in the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus, without which Christianity is pointless and historically unfounded.
Thus, for me, it is of great significance that we have today a number of leading scientists, theologians, and clergy who strongly affirm the incarnation and resurrection while at the same time accepting evolution (in the sense of the common descent of humans & other organisms, by whatever mechanisms). Some of those thinkers accept an historical Adam (though obviously their understanding of that is not identical to that of those who reject human evolution), while others do not. However, the fact that this group exists today–the fact that it is not an empty set–is a very important change from the first part of the last century, when Protestant Christians were faced with a very grim choice: either to follow William Jennings Bryan, Harry Rimmer, and George McCready Price by rejecting modern science in the name of “orthodox” faith, or to follow Shailer Mathews, Robert Millikan, and Harry Emerson Fosdick by rejecting “orthodox” faith in the name of science.
I do not see the controversy over an historical Adam as having the same significance for Christian beliefs as the controversy about incarnation and resurrection. I understand why many evangelicals do see it this way, but in my opinion they need to see the forest as well as the trees.
As for science education (the main topic of this thread), I find Dr Scott’s comments very interesting–especially when coupled with the context in which they were made. I know that Dr Scott identifies herself as a “secular humanist” (there is such a religious group, formally speaking, and I understand that she belongs to it), so perhaps the group that sponsored her at CSU was assuming that she would take an aggressively Dawkinsian approach to “science and religion.” She does not. At one time perhaps she would have (I sense that she might have, several years ago), but in recent years she has (I believe) come to believe genuinely in what she said or implied at CSU: namely, that science does not equate with atheism, that reasonable people can disagree about the religious implications of science, and that science educators should concentrate on getting the science right.
As a former science teacher myself, I agree with this: let the teachers convey as accurately as possible what the science is about–including (especially) why scientists reach the conclusions that they reach (that is, how science actually works) — without expecting or requring all of their students to embrace all of those conclusions. However, the students ought to be expected to understand the basis for the conclusions (to a limited degree, obviously, you can’t make scientists out of everyone) as part of learning science.
You can only accomplish this, IMO, by recognizing that instructional time for science or any other subject is a zero-sum game: to emphasize more how science works, you have to take out some specific science content. The people who write curriculum requirements and textbooks realize this in theory, but it’s often hard to tell in practice that they do. You can’t just add things without taking things out.
Further to Terry Grey’s saying he “was nearly in total agreement with the scientific arguments presented (critical of YEC and ID). Her clear definition of evolution, her distinction between common ancestry and various mechanisms of evolution, and her rebuttals of Dembski and Behe were all things that I agreed with and have used in my own presentations. In general, I would call NCBE a friend of ASA.” And “Anthropology, archaeology, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI), forensics, etc. are all scientific. Social and human sciences all deal with intelligent agents. Admit it, and then explain why ID is different, ” apparently due to “the identity and scientific accessibility of the designer” being outside the claims of ID.
Several introductory observations. I wasn’t aware that NSCE was no longer addressing all of science but was now restricted to Biology. Having heard Dr. Scott speak on several occasions I’m still waiting to hear her give a “clear definition of evolution” so I’m sorry I missed this presentation. Frankly, I found her about as clear as the NAS instruction on the teaching of biology that conflates cosmology, geology and biological evolution. The NAS seems to imply a definition reducing to change over time that doesn’t help us very much. It is not clear to me why dismissing ID for being coy as to “the identity and scientific accessibility of the designer” is justified.
It seems to me it might be helpful to search for a scientific scale as an alternative to the semantic differentiations we struggle with. It appears that there is at least an agreed starting point for BioLogos(TE), RTB(OEC), ICR(YEC) and others. The Creator God started it. Differences as to how, how often, when and where God may have intervened in the causal flow of nature and how that should be understood in relation to the Scriptural text leads to the different views. I t would be illuminating to see how the currently held timeline and intervention views of the main groups compare. Just as the BioLogos group feels it constructive to avoid the loaded and misunderstood term “evolution,” there might also be a way to get away from “God of the gaps” arguments. Personally I would hope we could develop some sort of probability assessment. For example, my current impressions line up in an order like this.
1) Science may eventually make me feel comfortable that common descent is more firmly established than common design.
2) Natural processes for the origin, deracimization and polymerization leading to uncoded nucleotide chains of biologically interesting degree of polymerization is rather improbable.
3) Natural process for encoding these nucleotide chains with the complex specified information requisite for life appears vanishingly improbable.
There is considerable activity of varying degrees of promise atacking point 2).
So far I am unaware of any promising approach to 3) that doesn’t suffer from the displacement problem. That is, shoving off stage a mechanism that is richer in complex specified information than the product of the exercise.