Brilliance Lost: Ignorance is NOT Bliss

Neil deGrasse Tyson gives a very interesting talk. To me, he really rips it up.

Short version:

By watching this one, you get the gist of his point. But, you might miss a lot of important context worth hearing. And what is the main point? We have a lot to lose when we displace the drive for discovery with blissful ignorance.




Full version:

You get to see Tyson really build up his case against the real harm that comes from embracing Intelligent Design as a real part of science.

Just Give Us the Facts

Around 2001, students from Jefferson High School in Lafayette, Indiana petitioned the school board by requesting that Special Creationism (Intelligent Design) lessons be taught along side evolution.

These students were not asking for evolution to be muted in their classrooms. They simply wanted Special Creationism to be taught along side evolution.

These students articulated that they wanted to be given all of the facts and then be allowed to decide for themselves what was true. They felt that Special Creationism had merit and needed to be taught along side evolution so that they can make an informed decision.

While this petition was student led, I'm confident (though not certain, of course) that an adult or two were behind this effort.

I suspect this because I started a bible study back in my high school years. Despite my religious enthusiasm in those days, an adult prompted me to meet with my high school principal to gain permission to meet. He prepped me with legal information as leverage (which actually backed my principal into a corner when she first seemed hesitant to comply). Also, adults supported our meetings which furthered our drive as students. We didn't impose our meetings on others and did not meet during school hours. We could meet before or after, according to the law at the time (which I think is still valid, for those of you who insist that prayer has been taken out of school).

So, I'm confident these students had similar influences even thought they were probably just as passionate about this debate as the adults who possibly put them up to this petition.

During the formal presentation of their petition to the school board, the students eloquently made their case. And many of the students who supported the petition donned black T-shirts with white type that read:

Just give us the facts and then let us decide.

And on the back of their snazzy black T-shirts was printed the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Nice touch, I must say.

Students kept insisting to the school board that they deserved to have all the facts. Somehow, they seemed to "know" that Special Creationism was as valid as evolution and deserved to be taught in their biology classrooms. "Just give us all the facts and then leave us to decide", they reiterated.

Interesting . . .

Honestly, I loved their T-shirts. I want one! But I don't think they really understood what they were asking. I think they only fashioned their words to sound like they wanted all the scientific information that was available to them.

But what they really said was:

Just give us the facts and we'll decide which ones we like and don't like.

Because the fact is, Special Creationism is not a scientific theory.

Nope.

Special Creationism doesn't help us understand why a monster strain of Tuberculosis is on the rise. Nor does Special Creationism give us clues as to how we stop it.

Intelligent Design doesn't answer questions about why certain people are immune to the AIDS virus and how that may one day help us achieve a cure.

Special creation "theory" doesn't help HIV patients live longer by understanding that the virus evolves as it continually duplicates inside it's host-victim.

For example:

As an HIV patient takes medication for a while, a variant of the AIDS virus becomes resistant to the medication as the other variants of the virus die off in the patient's system. As a result, a dominant strain overcomes the medication and causes the patient's condition to worsen.

If planned carefully, medication can be paused for a period of time. During this time, the resistant variant starts to make varied strains of the virus again. But in doing so, the resistant HIV population becomes dwarfed by it's own diverse offspring of viruses which are once again susceptible to medication. This tactic has extended the survival and health of patients who are battling AIDS.

The insight for this treatment plan comes from acknowledging and studying evolution. Not from studying Special Creation or Intelligent Design.

Nope. Sorry.

Think of another example. What if you were studying fish in a pond? You needed to find out why the fish were contracting a fungus that was killing many of them. You soon discover that some of the fish are sexual in their reproduction and others are asexual (clones).

You learn from observation that the healthiest fish are offspring of sexual parents while the asexual fish become sick by the fungus most often.

Why?

During your study, the pond dries up due to a drought. All the fish either die or migrate. But fortunately, the pond fills up with water again after the drought and the fish population returns.

Ugh! But you see the previous health trends reverse! Now the asexual are healthier than the sexual fish and the fungus seems to hit the sexual population extra hard.

Why?

Can Intelligent Design answer this question?

No. But studying evolution can.

The genetic diversity in the asexual fish is always very low. So the fungus can run amok with the asexual fish because they have little diversity driving traits that resist infections.

But when the pond dried up, the fish population shrank so much that the sexual population of fish had to inbreed in order to survive! As a result, the sexual fish became more clone-like than the asexual fish; the diversity of their gene pool fell lower than their asexual counterparts!

After understanding the problem, the solution can easily fixed the problem. Find some genetically diverse fish that reproduce sexually and add them to the pond. The offspring of the sexual fish become resistant to the fungus just as before-- all thanks to studying evolution.

If you must insist that Special Creationism is science, then the ways of creation must be studied through the theory of evolution.

Evolution is a fact. Of course we don't understand everything about it. And while we don't know if we humans came from slime billions of years ago, we do know that we have common ancestors with other species of apes from millions of years ago.

So when you say that you simply want the facts, be sure that you really mean that. That's what a good scientist strives for-- just the facts.

Even the uncomfortable ones.

So those students in Lafayette, Indiana were getting the facts. Some of the students simply didn't like what the facts started to imply concerning their literal interpretation of the bible. As a result, they decided that they wanted an alternative to the facts instead.

As it turns out, the school board kindly and gently rejected their petition.

And most of the biology and chemistry teachers at Jefferson High School wiped sweat from their brows as they sighed a great sigh of relief.

Show Me

I can't seem to think of a good or clever way to start this post.

So, I'll just start it:

Is teaching Intelligent Design in a high school biology class fair?

Maybe (just maybe) Intelligent Design should be mentioned in a history class or philosophy class.

But, in my opinion, Intelligent Design should not come up in a science class.

At least, no one should be forced to teach ID as a scientific theory.

I don't mean to belittle history of philosophy with my previous statements. These subjects have a different emphasis that may warrant discussing a topic such as Intelligent Design.

But within the subject of science, Intelligent Design has no place-- especially if introduced as a scientific theory.

You know, an equivalent alternative to the theory of evolution.

Let me explain my point of view in a nutshell:

Science says, "show me"; religion says, "only believe".

Now, here's the long version of my point of view:

The word science has Latin roots which mean to know or knowledge.

Science sets out to learn what we don't yet know. Good science attempts this quest for knowledge while still realizing we don't (and probably won't) know everything. Also, science attempts to gather knowledge with the realization that we make mistakes and sometimes misinterpret our findings during our knowledge quest.

So then, a hypothesis should be thoroughly examined and supported by a wide range of facts before members of the scientific community accept it as a scientific theory.

And even after becoming a scientific theory, the idea should remain subject to scrutiny, modification, and even deletion should new facts come along.

But scientific theories are usually supported by a lot of intellectual substance. A hypothesis already has trouble becoming a theory. So, overturning a theory won't come so easily, either.

And, I will admit here that bias can interfere with this process.

However, the error-correcting mechanism that I alluded to beforehand is the overall goal of science.

And when the scientific world finally accepts an idea as knowledge or as a scientific theory, the proponents of such findings tend to stick to their claims.

At least, until better information comes along.

Such tenacity from scientists can sometimes be mistaken as dogmatism.

And I will also admit here, that sometimes it is dogmatism. But not always. Otherwise, we wouldn't enjoy the advances of technology that we have today.

The followers of religion tend to place faith within a scripture text whose interpretations and meanings can be quite subjective. Also, faith is often placed in a tradition with is passed along from parents towards their children or from proselytizing efforts towards a non-believer. The congregants of faith tend to share in the same traditions and teach new disciples how to follow the rules of faith. Yet these rules of faith, like scripture, are often subjective based upon the interpretations of believers and non-believers alike.

And some people are bold enough to forge their own religious faith from within their hearts. I admire this very much and find that a bravery goes along with doing such. But even here, such religious notions are subjected to the interpretations of the lone disciple.

For many religious people, the adherence to a religious belief becomes a source of knowledge. The belief itself becomes the evidence of an assertion or claim. And while one has a right to opinions and beliefs, this does not necessitate that such opinions or beliefs are actually right.

Or wrong, for that matter . . .

The tenacity that one has for his or her religious beliefs can often be admirable.

But when religious belief is treated as an absolute truth that everyone must follow (rather than an opinion or personal preference), such tenacity often changes from admirable faithfulness to religious dogmatism.

Now, don't get me wrong: you don't have to believe that life formed out of a soup of hot water and chemicals to accept evolution. And not everyone who believes in an Intelligent Designer rejects evolution. Many religious people with a deep sense of faith accept evolution. Evolution doesn't answer the questions about the origin of life-- only the origin of species. Evidence showing that life could have formed in a hot soupy mix is growing. But that notion still remains a hypothesis, unlike in the theory of evolution where one species slowly gives rise to another.

And since evolution is a scientific theory with a series of facts supporting it, teaching evolution in a science class (such as biology) is quite appropriate.

But what tangible evidence merits teaching Intelligent Design as a scientific theory in a science class alongside evolution?

The proponents of Intelligent Design theory often accuse evolutionists of dogmatism. They claim that evolutionists are biased towards Darwinism and only teach the theory because evolutionists constantly ignore the "other valid theories".

Like the Intelligent Design "theory", for example.

However, evolution has a wide range of testable, verifiable evidence whereas Intelligent Design has no evidence of any scientific sort.

Faith does not count as evidence in science.

I don't look down on anyone who believes that God created the universe. I don't look down on anyone who believes life originated through an Intelligent Designer. You can find good scientists who personally believe this way.

But to ask the students, teachers, and practitioners of science to treat Intelligent Design as a scientific theory is no more appropriate than asking religious followers to allow Darwinism into their Sunday School classes and pulpits as a "valid" explanation for the Genesis account.

Often, believers reject evolution theory on the grounds of their religious belief. As a result, many believers fail to see the evidence that supports evolution. And worse, too many believers (but not all) fail to see the difference between tenaciously supporting a scientific theory in lieu of a so called Intelligent Design theory.

Science will not accept Intelligent Design as a theory without some solid evidence.

While individual scientists may personally believe in a Designer or Creator, the discipline of science remains reluctant to simply believe.

The scientific method will always pose this same unwavering challenge:

Show me.