Science From Multiple World Views?

Recently I stumbled upon a small publisher of home school materials called Gravitas Publications. This publisher's main product is called Real Science 4 Kids by Dr. Rebecca Keller. I have no expertise in home school curricula, and from what I have seen some aspects of her approach seem sensible.

What bothers me is her claim that science can be taught from the point of view of multiple world views in a strictly neutral sort of way.

She writes:

"Yes! Real science doesn’t choose sides. So when teaching science, it’s important that the lessons let kids explore all sides. Otherwise, choosing one side can get in the way of understanding the real science. Darwinism, creationism, intelligent design theory, and all the other “isms” are simply paradigms (or “lenses”) through which science is viewed. The “-isms” are philosophies based on perceptions for how science is interpreted. Students need to learn how “-isms” play a role in science."

Ok, science doesn't choose sides in that is ideologically neutral- there is no conservative science, or Christian science, or Buddhist science. There ideally is just science. And she is right- our world view does affect how we interpret science. But is science really neutral in terms of the world view it admits?

Personally I think not. For example I don't see much support in science for the notion that the Universe or the Earth is say 10,000 years old or that the goal of a liquid is to seek its lowest level, or that magic is real. At the very least science since it is empirical forces scientific explanations and tests of scientific ideas to be mechanistic and transparent.

At any rate, check out Dr. Keller's video discussing the issue of multiple world views and see what you think:

Half Full or Half Empty?

There is a new Gallup poll surveying American's belief in evolution. The bad news is that 40% of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years. The good news is that the percentage of people who believe this has fallen to its lowest level since the first such survey in 1982. Also the pace of decline seems more rapid since the year 2000.

Check out the survey at http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

Oh Good Grief!

Just when I think anti-evolutionists can't get any sillier some politician comes along to demonstrate that I am wrong. Seems that a mayoral candidate in Tulsa feels the zoo doesn't properly honor Christianity and needs an exhibit on the first book of Genesis.

"Today we are announcing that God will be glorified in this city. He shall not be shunned. Upon our election, we hereby commit to honoring Him in all ways that He has been dishonored," said Anna Falling.

OK...check it out for yourself at:
http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=10888260

So here we go again...

Here we go again in Kansas, haggling about evolution. In the mean time evolution keeps on happening and in unexpected ways. For example, you may be familiar with the infectious cancer that is threatening the Tasmanian Devil (AKA Taz) with extinction. This cancer is spread when the Devils bite each other's faces during mating leading to spread of cancer cells from animal to animal.

The infectious cancer cells are genetically identical and their spread is believed to be made possible because inbreeding has led to a loss of genetic diversity so that the animal's immune systems are not able to recognize the foreign cancer cells.

See this link for background.

In an interesting twist, natural selection seems to be operating, at least in the short run, to favor precocious sexual activity and breeding. According to the research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, this is the first time where an infectious disease has been shown to bring about these sorts of life history changes in mammals.

Often times natural selection favors the spread of genes conferring increased resistance to a disease so the scientist's findings are some what surprising.

The other interesting thing is that even though genetic diversity in the Tasmanian Devil has apparently been reduced by genetic drift there is still enough genetic diversity for natural selection to lead to a rapid shift in the timing of reproduction.

Presumably the scientists will now follow up with research looking at the sorts of genes that are involved and try to related the life history changes they see to genetics. Might there also be long term responses in other aspects of the animal's behavior and physiology driven by natural selection?

Aside from it's implication for the survival of the Tasmanian Devil as a species, this research may provide insight into the ability of endangered species to evolutionarily adapt to rapid environmental changes be they due to disease or to human activity.

Meanwhile back in Kansas...sigh.

Cross posted with Dangerous Ideas.

Nota Bene:

Here is a very balanced discussion of the PNAS paper over at Not Rocket Science. Note in particular this comment:

"Jones clarifies that so far, all she has found is a physical response. Rather than reflecting genetic evolution, the changes in the devil's life cycle over such a short time span is almost certainly due to "phenotypic plasticity" - the ability of an organism to change its body and its behaviour to match its environment, without changing its genes."

So while there is clearly selective pressure for early reproduction, the immediate response of the population may be a physiological adaptation rather than a longer term evolutionary adaptation.

A Row about Testing Evolution...

...is ongoing now on my Science blog at the Lawrence Journal World. Most of the discussion has been at a fairly high level considering how such discussions usually go. Take a look here:

http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/dangerous-ideas/2008/feb/18/can-evolution-be-tested/

Brownback on evolution

Senator Brownback clarified his position on evolution today in the New York Times. At first his remarks seem reasonably to echo the position of the Roman Catholic Church on evolution. Yet he reveals himself to be a creationist with little more understanding of science than those who believe humans and Tyrannosaurus rex lived peacefully together before the Fall.

For example, he reasonably says that Faith and scientific reasoning can't be contradictory:

"The scientific method, based on reason, seeks to discover truths about the
nature of the created order and how it operates, whereas faith deals with
spiritual truths. The truths of science and faith are complementary: they deal
with very different questions, but they do not contradict each other because the
spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God."

And he is absolutely correct when he asserts that how "these theories"-presumably evolutionary theories- affect our understanding of the "human person" is a fundamental question.

But read more closely and Brownback is unmasked as a creationist-not even a theistic evolutionist. First, he repeats the creationist line about the distinction believing in microevolution (evolution with in a species). For example he says:

"If belief in evolution means simply assenting to microevolution, small
changes over time within a species, I am happy to say, as I have in the past,
that I believe it to be true. If, on the other hand, it means assenting to an
exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place
for a guiding intelligence, then I reject it. "

Notice how he not only rejects the concept of evolution of new species but also conflates any belief in evolution of new species from preexisting species with materialism.

So rather than striking a reasonable accommodation between faith and science, Brownback reveals himself to be an extremist wedded to the same sorts of fundamentalist rhetoric, that rejects the power of science to help us understand our humble place in the universe.

Update! Pat Hayes over at Red State Rabble has also posted about Brownback here.

Technorati Tags:
Science
Brownback
Creationism
Evolution

Creationist Humor?

Emmanuel Goldstein commenting on my last post said:

"We know you despise all religion.Catholics, Jews, whatever.Its what atheists do. But pretending that you are just promoting science when you are using science as a front to promote your own anti religious agenda is a huge deception.
4:43 AM"


Mr. Goldstein is associated with a wonderfully imaginative Creationist site at http://www.thebrites.org/ which features the "The Biological Research Institute for Theoretical Evolution Studies"; "The Paley Watch Company "which claims to use natural selection to assemble watches; and my favorite-"Mutation Paste" which accelerates evolution. There is also Darwin Camp where today's Darwin Youth can "live and learn natural selection. "

Great fun and a great teaching moment about the misunderstandings many people have about evolution. Even the name, by the way, is a clever take on an organisation called "The Brights" which is indeed Atheistic in slant. Visit them at http://www.the-brights.net/.

Technorati Tags:
Creationism
Evolution
Religion