Proselytism in Schools a Cause for Concern
Published in the Straits Times forum yesterday (6 August 2005) :
“Singapore has prided itself on being a melting pot where people of different religions and cultures live together in harmony.
However, as sizeable portion of the Christian population engages in activities like proselytism, evangelism and attacks on evolution. Proselytism and evangelism often include verbal assaults on other religions.
I am a secondary school student and have often seen people promoting their religion within the school. While they are free to believe in their faith, what they do is against the very Pledge they recite every morning, and an affront to the work our ancestors had put in to establish this nation.
Our ancestors put aside their differences, worked together and built this country through friendship, trust and tolerance, something these missionaries are threatening to undo.
Should there by some religious influence on government decision-making ? Nay ! I say. The United States has already let religious authorities affect its bureaucracy. Now, half the schools in the country do not teach evolution and that the Earth is about 6,000 years old, despite the scientific evidence.
Are we to devolve to that level ?”
The theory of evolution – and the word to stress is theory – is something we don’t completely understand. There are gaps in the theory that we can’t explain, so it’s not unfair that it’s flaws should be subject to attack, whether by Christians or not. After all, the veracity of science lies in the fact that it, unlike blind faith, is open to questioning and testing.
The writer’s argument should also cut both ways.
If the writer thinks that it is terrible to be subject to a barrage of arguments (perhaps rather painfully not very coherent ones, since they are made by his peers) against evolution, and that this is an affront to his belief(s) (atheism ? evolutionism ?), isn’t it as much an affront for creationists (whether Christian or not) to be told during geography and science lessons (though I doubt that teachers put it in absolute terms) that their beliefs are incredible and that only the theory of evolution can explain how our planet came into existence ? Isn’t it as much an affront for creationists to listen to and be required to use the words “nature” instead of “creation” in geography and science classes ?
By the above I don’t mean that creationism (or “intelligent design”, the more politically correct term) should necessarily be taught in science and geography classes as an alternative theory on how our world came to exist. Unlike evolution, which can be proved to a limited extent through experimentation and observation, intelligent design cannot. The theory of evolution is therefore, arguably, more of a science than intelligent design is. Intelligent design, on the other hand, might better fit into a class on philosophy or religion.
I would also agree with those who say that a theory (ie. evolution) is not necessarily incorrect or invalid just because it cannot be conclusively proven. What is needed, however, is more balanced approach when the theory of evolution is taught. Students should be informed of the gaps and the limits of our understanding, so that they do not incorrectly assume that the theory of evolution is the last word on how all of us came to exist.
November 19th, 2005 at 4:00 pm
‘proved to a limited extent’?
The theory of evolution survived gregor mendel’s genetic peas , james and watson’s discovery of dna structure and many other scientific experiments and discoveries.
Think about this, any scientist who can find and present any evidence that cast even a tiny doubt on the theory will almost certainly gain instant fame, yet no one has done it. why?
November 19th, 2005 at 4:50 pm
You stress the word theory. Einstein’s General Relativity is also a theory, but it’s been serving you pretty well, hasn’t it?
And what about Newton who discovered binomial theorem and then develop a theory that later become calculus? I bet you studied that.
So you see, theories are theoretical not because they are false. They may have loopholes, or be disproved or debunked altogether by a more advanced theoretical reasoning.
It’s how science moved forward. And the Christian Fundies in the US are doing pretty well in hijacking it by banning stem cell research and introducing frivolous theories that belonged more to a cell grup than the classroom.
November 19th, 2005 at 11:34 pm
In response to yh and danb :
From the outset let me say that I do not have a deep knowledge of the theory of evolution or creationism / intelligent design (ID). In fact I am not scientifically trained - my knowledge of biology and physics / chemistry is limited to what I studied in sec 2 and 4 respectively. I had written what I had written merely to point out that it is disingenuous to complain about someone preaching creationism, when evolutionists are allowed to proclaim their theory freely even if that offends a religious person.
In other words, if this debate on creationism / intelligent design and evolution is to be meaningful, the exchange of opinions must be grounded on tolerance and a healthy respect for the other person as a human being who is entitled to his own opinion, regardless of what one thinks of his (silly) ideas. Giving each other labels, calling each other names (like “IDiots” or god-haters or whatever else) and jumping to conclusions about the other person’s beliefs - a lot of which I notice is going on - is unhelpful and is unlikely to bring us closer to the “truth”. Can’t we just calmly engage in discussion ?
Now, let me turn to the issue of scientific theory. I am in entire agreement with danb on how science has moved forward. In fact I had pointed out that the strength of scientific theory lies “in the fact that it, unlike blind faith, is open to questioning and testing”, and danb affirmed the same by saying that scientific theory can be “disproved or debunked” by more advanced reasoning when it comes along. But for this reason, I had also said (perhaps not very clearly) that just because a theory seems to work doesn’t necessarily mean that our theory of why it works is correct. Hence the stress on the word “theory”, but not as danb understood it. Danb had correctly pointed out that “a scientific theory is theoretical not because it is false”. But I did not say that theory is false; I said that a theory is not necessarily the absolute truth or the final word on how or why something works or came to be.
As for my comment on “proved to a limited extent”, I had merely said, if the quote were read in its context, that one can through “experimentation and observation” prove evolution to a limited extent, meaning that one cannot by some grand experiment show dinosaurs evolving into the animals we have today. Again, I did not say that the theory of evolution is false. But I think that we should not be so foolish as to say that the theory of evolution is the absolute truth and final word on how humans came to exist, when (from what I understand) there is much that we cannot explain.
November 20th, 2005 at 8:27 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
In scientific usage, theory is not the opposite of fact. Theories are typically ways of explaining why things happen, usually after the fact that they happen is no longer in scientific dispute. In referring to the “theory of global warming”, for example, there is no implication that global warming is not occurring; world temperatures have been measured and are increasing. The “theory of global warming” refers instead to scientific work that explains how and why this has been happening.
In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from observable facts or supported by them (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified.
—I also leave you with the theory of intelligent falling—
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_falling
Intelligent Falling (IF) is a satirical response to the ongoing Intelligent Design (ID) debate. It proposes that things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence is pushing them down.
IF advocates are portrayed as citing similar arguments as those used by supporters of ID. They assert that theories explaining gravity are not internally consistent nor mathematically reconcilable with quantum mechanics - therefore gravity is a “theory in crisis.” The portrayal includes advocates explaining that IF should be taught in school along with the theory of gravity to enable students to make ‘an informed decision’ on the subject.
–
November 20th, 2005 at 9:59 pm
I think that, like it or not, a theory is still a hypothesis. Of course, there are hypotheses and there are hypotheses. Some lie at the more speculative end of the spectrum, while others are closer to fact or have been uncontradicted for so long (I’m hard pressed to think of a good example because of my lack of scientific training … how about the “theory of gravity” ?) that they are almost universally accepted to be as good as fact.
Some theories, although somewhat hypothetical, we ignore at our own peril. Such as that on global warming.
Also, although science appears to be a system of acquiring knowledge in a completely objective, rational, and empirical way, one limitation as far as I can see being a scientist’s choice of data, which can be rather subjective in practice. How else could American scientists come up with the alternative view that global and in particular US carbon emissions are not responsible for global warming ?
So while I would agree that “a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified”, I don’t think the scientific method which leads to the theory is as objective as many believe it to be.
And since we’re on the topic of intelligent falling, you might want to look at http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512 for a good laugh. Cheers.