DOCSLIB.ORG

The 'Science and Religion Movement' an Opportunity for Improved Public Understanding of Science?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The 'Science and Religion Movement' an Opportunity for Improved Public Understanding of Science? The 'Science and Religion Movement' An Opportunity for Improved Public Understanding of Science? The "science and religion movement" of the late 1990s can help improve the climate for acceptance of science and of evolution as a valid science. The theistic science movement, however, is different; it needs monitoring, and its growth would be detrimental to science. EUGENIE C. SCOTT hat are we talking about when we talk about "science" and "religion"? Science is a way of Wknowing that attempts to explain the natural world using natural causes. It is agnostic toward the super- natural—it neither confirms nor rejects it. So science is methodologically materialistic: matter, energy, and their interactions are used to explain nature. Supernatural causes are ruled out for philosophical as well as practical reasons: science requires testing of explanations against the natural world, and testing requires that some variables be held con- stant. Supernatural forces by definition cannot be held con- stant, thus supernatural explanation is outside of what sci- ence can deal with. Mostly, methodological materialism is SKEPTICAL INQUIRER July/August 1999 29 embraced by scientists because it works so well; we have found tered to a group of scientists in 1996, researchers found no out a great deal about how the universe operates. To say "God appreciable change in the number of "believing" scientists— did it" does not lead us to greater understanding and tends to about 39 percent (Larson and Witham 1997). Many scientists discourage further research. Even conservative theologian don't see religion and science as inherently incompatible. Alvin Plantinga agrees that resorting to direct supernatural In fact, this incompatibility view is found in only one of causes to explain the natural word is a "science stopper" four ways that (Christian) religion and science historically (Plantinga 1997). have interacted. As an anthropologist, I define religion as a set of rules and 1) The "warfare" model, as illustrated in Andrew D. beliefs a people have about a nonmaterial universe and its White's 1896 classic A History of the Warfare of Science with inhabitants. These may include gods, ancestors, powerful spir- Theology in Christendom, presents religion and science as being its, and other supernatural forces. Usually religion includes incompatible. This perspective is echoed today by Phillip Johnson, Richard Dawkins, Paul Kurtz, Aren't scientists all secularists? and many others. Depending on which side of the issue one is on, one concludes either Apparently not. A strong core of scientists that religion trumps science, or that science are believers. trumps religion. 2) The "separate realms" model under- ideas about an afterlife, but not always. Religion often but not stands science and religion to focus on different areas of always includes rules about how people should treat one human concern, with science explaining the natural world, another (ethics and morals). Religion often but not always and religion dealing with spiritual matters. Here, science and includes explanations of the natural world. Religious beliefs religion don't conflict, because they have litde to say to one almost always include a sense of the "spiritual"—awe, wonder, another. Stephen Jay Gould is a proponent of this view. reverence, faith, and other emotions. (Most Americans are 3) The "accommodation" model, in which science and reli- Christians, and although "religion" obviously is far broader gion are more directly engaged; theological understanding is than just Christianity, my discussion must for reasons of space thought to be deepened through the understanding of science. be limited to this tradition.) Some Christians wrestling with the theological implications of It would appear that science and religion have little in com- Darwinism in the early twentieth century, for example, were mon, yet in the late 1990s there is substantial activity taking willing to reinterpret basic concepts of the Fall, Atonement, place between them. The American Association for the and Original Sin in the light of evolutionary theory. These the- Advancement of Science has an office to promote "Dialogue ologians were considering such problems as "If humans Between Science and Religion," and in November of 1997 it evolved from apes, there was no original state of grace and the hosted a major national conference in Chicago titled, "The concept of Original Sin must be reinterpreted" (Bowler 1999, Epic of Evolution." Physical, biological, and social scientists 39). The accommodation seems to be largely a one-way street, were teamed with theologians to discuss the scientific and the- with science acting as a source for theological rcinterpretation ological implications of evolution. Dozens (maybe even scores) rather than the reverse. of "science and religion" conferences have been held since 4) In the "engagement" model, science and religion inter- then, including a large "Science and the Spiritual Quest" con- act as equal partners, stimulating each other to ask different ference held on the campus of the University of California questions than they otherwise might, with the idea that the sponsored by the Berkeley-based Center for Theology and the interaction of both epistemologies will contribute to a fuller Natural Sciences (CTNS). Science, Newsweek, Time, and US understanding of both the natural and nonmaterial realms. News and World Report have also covered what has come to be This view is reflected in the quotation often attributed to called the "science and religion movement." Einstein that "Religion without science is crippled, while sci- To some, this is a puzzling development. After all, isn't reli- ence without religion is lame." Scientist and ordained minister gion supposed to be in conflict with science, and aren't scientists Robert J. Russell, of CTNS, said in his introduction to the all secularists? Apparently not. A strong core of scientists are "Science and the Spiritual Quest" (SSQ) conference: believers. In 1914, the sociologist James H. Leuba surveyed sci- For some scientists, the universe as such is the answer. It alone entists listed in American Men and Women of Science And found is our source, and science offers us sufficient meaning and pur- that 42 percent believed in a personal God—much less than in pose. For other scientists, many of whom are gathered here today, science is pan of the answer, but a truly adequate the general public, but still a substantial number. He predicted account requires language about the God whom Jews, that through lime, fewer scientists would believe in God—but Christians, and Moslems praise as the Creator of the universe when Leuba's (albeit problematic) questionnaire was readminis- and the ultimate source of meaning and purpose in our lives and world. The primary purpose of SSQ is to explore this sec- ond option. Many scholars now see theological doctrines, Eugenie Scott, a CSICOP Fellow and member of the Executive like scientific theories, not as rigid, dosed dogmas but as Council, is Executive Director of the National Center for Science hypotheses about the world which, while firmly believed to be Education, Inc., El Cerrito, Calif. She is a physical anthropologist. true, are radically subject to testing by the appropriate data. E-mail: [email protected]. For at least some of these theologians, the "data" should now 3 0 July/August 1999 SKEPTICAL INQUIRER include the theories and discoveries of the natural sciences. that evolution occurred, but deny any role for God. They also see science as infused with concepts and assump- Antievolutionism in the US and Canada is sustained by the tions whose roots, though often unacknowledged, lie in phi- idea that evolution and religion (Christianity) are incompati- losophy and, more indirectly, in Western monotheism, and which invite a critical discussion between theologians, philoso- ble; creationists such as Henry Morris demand that people phers, and scientists. (Russell 1998, 27) choose between evolution (which is equated with atheism) and Christianity. This is a false dichotomy, of course, as illustrated Most scholars in the "science and religion movement" by the many religious scientists and clergy who accept that would identify with the "accommodation" and "engagement" evolution occurred. The mainline component of the science schools, and though some arc theologically conservative, very and religion movement takes for granted that evolution few of them are from biblical literaJist Christian traditions. The occurred, and the majority endorse methodological material- mainstream science and religion conferences do not include ism rather than supernatural intervention to explain the nat- creation science proponents such as Henry Morris and Duane ural world. In my observations of the movement, I have seen Gish of the Institute for Creation Research. But even neo- no support for doctrines such as creation science. creationists like Phillip Johnson and others in the "intelligent I believe that the science and religion movement will help design" movement arc absent from these conferences. These the public understand the broader range of opinions about and other conservative Christians are found in a "parallel uni- evolution among religious individuals, and in this manner verse" such as the "Naturalism, Theism and the Scientific improve the climate for the acceptance of evolution as valid Enterprise" conference at the University of Texas-Austin in science that should be taught in public schools. The theistic
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Prospects for Theistic Science
    Dialogue: Article Prospects for Theistic Science Prospects for Theistic Science Roy Clouser This article first tackles the issue of defining what counts as a religious belief, and shows why obtaining such a definition opens the way to discovering a deeper level of interaction between divinity beliefs and the scientific enterprise than the prevailing views of the science/religion relation allow for. This deeper level of interaction is illustrated by applying it to twentieth- century atomic physics. It is then shown why this level of interaction implies a distinctive anti-reductionist perspective from which theists should do science, a perspective in which belief in God acts as a regulative presupposition. Finally, reduction as a strategy for explanation is critiqued and found bankrupt. Roy Clouser mong theists, the most popular view positive content for virtually every science. I [think that] A of the engagement between science And some theists have proposed still other and religion (henceforth the S/R rela- ideas of thicker engagement. For example, religious belief tion) is a minimalist one. They see the role of recent writers have claimed that theism’s religious belief to science as primarily nega- positive contribution to science is not so much engages science tive such that any theory can be acceptable that of providing actual content to theories to a theist so long as it does not outright con- as it is that religious ideas inspire scientific in a way that tradict any revealed truth of Faith. On this ideas. There are permutations on these views, view, conflict between science and religion of course, and a number of mix-and-match is not merely is not only possible but is the only (or the combinations of them are possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Comments on Clouser's Claims for Theistic Science
    Dialogue: Response Comments on Clouser’s Claims for Theistic Science Comments on Clouser’s Claims for Theistic Science Hans Halvorson n “Prospects for Theistic Science,” Roy First, Clouser claims that theists and I Clouser sketches a framework for the atheists alike believe that there is a privi- relationship between religious and sci- leged class of self-existent (or “divine”) entific beliefs. In particular, he develops— beings; they differ only on which beings building on previous work1—a neo-Calvin- they identify as divine. Clouser also claims ist view, according to which religious belief that religious beliefs regulate scientific theo- is a presupposition of, and is relevant to, rizing because a scientist will attempt to Hans Halvorson any other body of beliefs. reduce everything to (or, explain everything in terms of) what she takes to be the self- According to Clouser, we should expect existent beings. But this proposal comes into religious beliefs to play a “regulative,” rather tension with Clouser’s claim that the theist than a “constitutive” role with regard to sci- should be a nonreductionist. In particular, entific theorizing. (Indeed, Clouser indicates if Clouser is correct that a scientist will try Clouser’s that religious beliefs do, in fact, regulate to explain everything in terms of what she scientific theorizing—whether or not we are thinks are the self-existent beings, then will proposal aware of it.) That is, while we should not not the theistic scientist attempt to explain typically expect religious beliefs to provide everything in terms of his divinity, viz., the content of scientific theories, we should holds out God? If this is so, then in what sense is the expect religious beliefs to provide a method- theist different from the atheist? In what ological framework within which scientific the promise sense is the theist a nonreductionist? theories are developed and evaluated.
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Misunderstandings About Evolution a Very Brief Guide for the Curious and the Confused by Dr
    Ten Misunderstandings About Evolution A Very Brief Guide for the Curious and the Confused By Dr. Mike Webster, Dept. of Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Cornell University ([email protected]); February 2010 The current debate over evolution and “intelligent design” (ID) is being driven by a relatively small group of individuals who object to the theory of evolution for religious reasons. The debate is fueled, though, by misunderstandings on the part of the American public about what evolutionary biology is and what it says. These misunderstandings are exploited by proponents of ID, intentionally or not, and are often echoed in the media. In this booklet I briefly outline and explain 10 of the most common (and serious) misunderstandings. It is impossible to treat each point thoroughly in this limited space; I encourage you to read further on these topics and also by visiting the websites given on the resource sheet. In addition, I am happy to send a somewhat expanded version of this booklet to anybody who is interested – just send me an email to ask for one! What are the misunderstandings? 1. Evolution is progressive improvement of species Evolution, particularly human evolution, is often pictured in textbooks as a string of organisms marching in single file from “simple” organisms (usually a single celled organism or a monkey) on one side of the page and advancing to “complex” organisms on the opposite side of the page (almost invariably a human being). We have all seen this enduring image and likely have some version of it burned into our brains.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship Washington University Law Review Volume 83 Issue 1 2005 Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution Matthew J. Brauer Princeton University Barbara Forrest Southeastern Louisiana University Steven G. Gey Florida State University Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Education Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Religion Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, and Steven G. Gey, Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution, 83 WASH. U. L. Q. 1 (2005). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol83/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Washington University Law Quarterly VOLUME 83 NUMBER 1 2005 IS IT SCIENCE YET?: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM AND THE CONSTITUTION MATTHEW J. BRAUER BARBARA FORREST STEVEN G. GEY* TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the New Distributive Model of Evolution Instruction
    JUDGING DARWIN: UNDERSTANDING THE NEW DISTRIBUTIVE MODEL OF EVOLUTION INSTRUCTION Louis J. Virelli III TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 82 II. THE EVOLUTION INSTRUCTION DEBATE ................................. 86 A. Religiously Explicit Policies ............................................. 89 B. Facially Neutral Challenges ............................................. 92 III. THE DISTRIBUTIVE MODEL ...................................................... 98 IV. THE DISTRIBUTIVE MODEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ......... 106 A. Administrative Law Principles ....................................... 106 B. Administrative Features of the Distributive Model ...... 111 C. The Distributive Model and the Establishment Clause ............................................................................. 117 V. NEW ISSUES UNDER THE DISTRIBUTIVE MODEL .................... 123 A. Political Legitimacy ........................................................ 123 B. Additional Questions ..................................................... 132 1. Judicial Review ........................................................ 132 2. Delegation ............................................................... 136 a. Procedural Due Process ................................... 138 b. Municipal Liability and Qualified Immunity .. 141 VI. CONCLUSION .......................................................................... 143 Associate Professor of Law, Stetson University College of Law; J.D.,
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution Vs. Creationism: an Introduction of the Country Where There Is Still an Ongoing Dolphin Mysteries Is Awell-Written, Inter (2Nd Edition)
    BOOK REVIEEWS ELIZABETHCOWLES, DEPARTMENT EDITOR $l gE i Sl Er [@ l l 13iE 1 !A of species presented) as well as notes to the text, a glossary, and a bibliography. Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction of the country where there is still an ongoing Dolphin Mysteries is awell-written, inter (2nd Edition). By Eugenie C. Scott. 2009. debate about restricting the teaching of evolu esting book on several levels. The authors' Greenwood Press. (ISBN 978-0-313-34427 tion. Luckily for us, we have Eugenie Scott's fascination with their subjects and respect 5). 351 pages. Hardback. $49.95 scholarly writing to support the teaching of for their habits and habitats are in evidence Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the evolution while it continues being targeted by throughout the text.Much of dolphin behav National Center for Science Education, is the antievolution movement. ior remains mysterious; the authors vividly one of the leading authorities in discuss convey the difficulties of the study of swift ing the controversy around the teaching of moving underwater animals. However, many Jose Vazquez behaviors are so clearly described and illus evolution. The second edition of her book Master Teacher Science of trated that the reader feels as if real dolphins includes recent developments in the evo Liberal Studies Program lution/creationism controversy in schools, had swum across the pages of the book, New York University playing with seaweed, displaying affection such as the Dover trial. This book is hard New York, NY 10003 or aggression, and at times being as curious Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/71/7/436/55238/20565349.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021 ly an introduction; it is the equivalent of [email protected] an encyclopedia since she covers so much about the researchers as the humans are of ground, and includes plenty of reference them.
    [Show full text]
  • How Religiously Neutral Are the Anti-Creationist Organisations?
    How Religiously Neutral are the Anti‐Creationist Organisations? Two case studies by Don Batten and Jonathan Sarfati 1) USA’s so‐called ‘National Center for Science Education’ In NCSE Reports 15(2):9, 1995, the Executive director, Eugenie C. Scott, protests against Dr John Morris of the Institute for Creation Research saying the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is ‘an offshoot of the American Humanist Association’. Scott claims confusion could possibly be due to NCSE's journal, Creation/Evolution, being started by the American Humanist Association (AHA) and initially edited by the executive director of the AHA, Frederick Edwords (a philosopher, not a scientist). The journal ‘was later sold by AHA to NCSE’, says Scott. Although humanism is an atheistic religious belief, Scott claims that NCSE was intended from the start to ‘be a religiously‐neutral organization focusing on science and education’. Scott says that NCSE has members from all sorts of religious persuasions, including ‘conservative evangelical Christians’. NCSE is supposedly just interested in ‘science education’. However, it seems strange that the only ‘science education’ NCSE seems interested in is evolution; not chemistry, physics, astronomy, or even experimental biology. ‘Science’ seems to be a euphemism for ‘evolution’, certainly nothing to do with the operational science that put men on the moon, cured diseases, etc. In NCSE Reports 16(1):7, 1996, readers are directed to an article ‘on our web site at http://www.csicop.org’. This is the Skeptics' (USA) web site, the ‘Science and Reason Site’, as the Skeptics claim, which overtly espouses materialism (atheism) with direct links to the Council for Secular Humanism and other atheistic / anti‐Christian sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Interview with Dra. Eugenie C. Scott
    Interview with Dra. Eugenie C. Scott Interview with Dra. Eugenie C. Scott Heslley Machado Silva1 1Centro Universitário de Formiga (UNIFOR-MG) Dr. Eugenie Carol Scott is an American anthropologist who was the executive director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). She was a professor and researcher at the Universities of Kentucky and Colorado in the fields of Medical Anthropology and Skeletal Biology. But her name is remembered as a reference in the struggle for quality scientific education and against the teaching of the pseudo-sciences of creationism and intelligent design. With many articles published in the main academic journals of the world and several books, highlighting the recognized "Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction" and "Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools " Eugenie Scott has always been in the front line to prevent creationism from being taught in US schools. She has been rewarded by various scientific entities for her efforts in this line. She has several university degrees honoris causa, presided and is member of several American academic associations. Even for the merit of her academic life in favor of scientific education she received an unusual homage in 2014, having the Asteroid 249540 received the name of Eugeniescott (2010 HX14). There is no space here to describe all of Dr. James Underdown director of the Center for Inquiry West and the Scott's academic accomplishments, so we must Independent Investigations Group (IIG) West awarding Dr. thank, be proud, and enjoy the opportunity to Eugenie Scott for his scientific merit to IIG, August 21, 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design Kent Greenwalt
    Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy Volume 17 Article 2 Issue 2 Symposium on Religion in the Public Square 1-1-2012 Establishing Religious Ideas: Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design Kent Greenwalt Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjlepp Recommended Citation Kent Greenwalt, Establishing Religious Ideas: Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design, 17 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y 321 (2003). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjlepp/vol17/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES ESTABLISHING RELIGIOUS IDEAS: EVOLUTION, CREATIONISM, AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN KENT GREENAWALT* I. INTRODUCTION The enduring conflict between evolutionary theorists and creationists has focused on America's public schools. If these schools had no need to teach about the origins of life, each side might content itself with promoting its favored worldview and declaring its opponents narrow-minded and dogmatic. But edu- cators have to decide what to teach, and because the Supreme Court has declared that public schools may not teach religious propositions as true, the First Amendment is crucially implicated. On close examination, many of the controversial constitu- tional issues turn out to be relatively straightforward, but others, posed mainly by the way schools teach evolution and by what they say about "intelligent design" theory, push us to deep questions about the nature of science courses and what counts as teaching religious propositions.
    [Show full text]
  • Science and the Christian Faith
    Science and the Christian Faith Brent Royuk June 18, 2006 Last Week: truth vs. Truth • Empirical vs. Revelatory • Provisional vs. Absolute • Tentative vs. Eternal • Skepticism vs. Faith truth vs. Truth • So how do the two truths relate to each other? • Truth is more important than truth, right? • Can Truth inform truth? • Does Truth trump truth? • Can truth change Truth? Goals: Week 3 • Review and elaborate on S&R Models – The taxonomical approach – Many conflicting viewpoints • Take a look at some of the issues involved in the creation/evolution debate – Lots of quotes S&R Models: One Approach S&R Models Let’s look more closely at the five main boxes: 1. Naturalism 2. Theistic Science 3. Open Science (Qualified Agreement) 4. Compartmentalism (Independence) 5. Complementarity Naturalism • The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be -- Carl Sagan, Cosmos. • The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins • cf William Paley’s Watchmaker Hypothesis • …we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. --Richard Lewontin • Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.
    [Show full text]
  • FAQ: Why Isn't Intelligent Design Found Published in Peer-Reviewed Science Journals?
    FAQ: Why isn't intelligent design found published in peer-reviewed science journals? The Short Answer: Point A. Science is not done by committee. It does not matter that intelligent design is rarely found in the journals because as free-thinking responsible scientists, we must test a theory ourselves and see if it holds up and not judge a theory based upon its apparent lack of presence in mainstream journals, or even by the "popular opinion" of the scientific community. Point B. ID proponents have published articles in peer reviewed science journals advocating their pro-design positions. Admittedly, these articles are rare. However, even if it does matter that intelligent design is scarcely found in mainstream peer reviewed journals, the counterpoint is that design is not excluded from the journals on the basis of its merits, but rather because of "new paradigm opposition." History of science has taught us that journals tend to exclude ideas which are radically opposed to current paradigms. Intelligent design is at odds with both the prevailing paradigm of biology today, evolution, as well as the prevailing mechanistic philosophy of science dominating origins science. Thus, exclusion of intelligent design is only to be expected, even if intelligent design is supported by evidence. Point C. Though "opposition to new paradigms" plays a major role in the exclusion of design from journals, the exclusion is also the byproduct of a political controversy, which serves to instill misunderstandings about intelligent design theory in the minds of many scientists, who are misled to believe that intelligent design is an untestable religious theory that has no place competing with true empirically based scientific theories in the journals.
    [Show full text]
  • The College Student's Back to School Guide to Intelligent Design
    Revised November, 2014 Part I: Letter of Introduction: Why this Student’s Guide? Part II: What is Intelligent Design? Part III: Answers to Your Professors’ 10 Most Common Misinformed Objections to Intelligent Design (1) Intelligent Design is Not Science (2) Intelligent Design is just a Negative Argument against Evolution (3) Intelligent Design Rejects All of Evolutionary Biology (4) Intelligent Design was Banned from Schools by the U.S. Supreme Court (5) Intelligent Design is Just Politics (6) Intelligent Design is a Science Stopper (7) Intelligent Design is “Creationism” and Based on Religion (8) Intelligent Design is Religiously Motivated (9) Intelligent Design Proponents Don’t Conduct or Publish Scientific Research (10) Intelligent Design is Refuted by the Overwhelming Evidence for Neo-Darwinian Evolution Part IV: Information About the Discovery Institute’s Summer Seminars on Intelligent Design COPYRIGHT © DISCOVERY INSTITUTE, 2014 — WWW.INTELLIGENTDESIGN.ORG PERMISSION GRANTED TO COPY AND DISTRIBUTE FOR NONPROFIT EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. 2 Part I: Letter of Introduction: Why this Student’s Guide? Welcome to College, Goodbye to Intelligent Design? The famous Pink Floyd song that laments, “We don’t need no education / We don’t need no thought control,” is not just the rant of a rebellious mind; it is also a commentary on the failure of education to teach students how to think critically and evaluate both sides of controversial issues. Few scientists understood the importance of critical thinking better than Charles Darwin. When he first proposed his theory of evolution in Origin of Species in 1859, Darwin faced intense intellectual opposition from both the scientific community and the culture of his day.
    [Show full text]