Questions Concerning Science Education

Alfred A. Brooks – 3/4/07

Introduction

The recently proposed resolution by Senator Raymond Finney (TN SR 17) requesting the Commissioner of Education to answer certain questions concerning science education raises serious concerns about the future objectivity of Tennessee public education. The essence of the resolution is to obtain answers to the following conditional questions:

"(1) Is the Universe and all that is within it, including human beings, created through purposeful, intelligent design by a Supreme Being, that is a Creator?

Understand that this question does not ask that the Creator be given a name. To name the Creator is a matter of faith. The question simply asks whether the Universe has been created or has merely happened by random, unplanned, and purposeless occurrences.

If the answer to Question 1 is “Yes,” please answer Question 2:

(2) Since the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught in Tennessee public schools?

If the answer to Question 1 is “This question cannot be proved or disproved,” please answer Question 3:

(3) Since it cannot be determined whether the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation, or theory, along with the theory of evolution in Tennessee public schools?

If the answer to Question 1 is “No” please accept the General Assembly’s admiration for being able to decide conclusively a question that has long perplexed and occupied the attention of scientists, philosophers, theologians, educators, and others."

Deficiencies in the Resolution

As a promotion of free and open debate on the issue, the resolution has several deficiencies:

1. The context of the exercise is not clearly defined but, based on all the commentary of the resolution, it is presumed to be the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the evolution of both into their current state, and the many contributing issues.
2. With this context the State legislature is not the proper place for the early rounds of this technical discourse especially the answer to Question 1.
3. The resolution fails to define 'Creator'. This is not a simple error as there are several different creation agents in the current debates and they have different characteristics. We shall assume the context is the recent or New Creation of about 6000 years ago and the corresponding all-powerful, all-knowing creator who stays around to actively intervene in any and/or all subsequent events.
4. The structure of and constraints placed on Question 1 permit the answers: a) Yes, b) Indeterminate, and c) No but no others thus requiring the responder to answer Questions 2 and 3 or accept a facetious compliment. Questions 2 and 3 are substantively the same question; an example of Hobson's Choice or no choice at all. This form of dialectic is prejudicial in that the answer 'No' is never given a chance to be explained. The facts of science will be given short shrift in a debate under these rules.
5. The clause, 'or has merely happened by random, unplanned, and purposeless occurrences', is at best a statement based on facts not in evidence and, in any case (except for the 'unplanned'), a gross misunderstanding or misstatement of the Darwinian Theory of Natural Selection.
   
   Briefly, Natural Selection proceeds by two steps: 1) the random alteration of a gene or two out of many thousands which expresses itself as a slight modification of the offspring who are otherwise the same as their parents, and 2) followed by a clearly non-random, selection process for reproductive success (gene propagation). To state that Natural Selection is random is a great failure of intellect.

A Brief but Compliant Answer

Taking the resolution at its face value and accepting its limitations, the following is a compliant answer;

Question 1 – No

Question 2 – Eliminated by conditional clause

Question 3 – Eliminated by conditional clause

We humbly accept the proffered accolade on behalf of those many scholars who have contributed to the explanation and understanding of the history of the universe, our planet and our species.

A More Germane Answer

This discussion is limited to a few major topics and a very limited number of broad sources for applicable, supporting facts. Space does not allow reference to individual sources supporting each topic.

What is Science?

Before appealing to science to provide answers to these questions, one must define the term, 'science'. Briefly, omitting pages of further explanation carefully defining each term:

Science is the continuing human endeavor to formulate better explanations of new and old, natural phenomena by constructing predictive, testable, mechanistic, cause and effect relationships based upon valid, reproducible measurements of the quantifiable, independent (causative) and dependent (resultant) variables which are integrally associated with the phenomena.

The Phenomenon of Evolution

The phenomenon referred to in the resolution can be subdivided for purposes of presentation into four smaller phenomena of smaller scope. These four steps have evidentiary support in varying degree as might be inferred from the age of the applicable theories and the difficulty of obtaining evidence:

1) The Origin of the Universe and Natural Laws

2) The Subsequent Evolution of the Universe

3) The Origin of Life on the Planet Earth

4) The Subsequent Evolution of Life on the Planet Earth

The Creationist Explanation

In the Creationist explanation, all four phenomena have the same causative agent, an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator who remains present to influence the progress of the world. The explanation of why things are the way they are, is that the Creator desired them this way and created them this way. The degree to which things appear to follow natural laws is because the Creator created the Laws and things will follow them so-long as the Creator wishes it but no longer. Since it is not known what the all-powerful Creator currently wishes, this explanation precludes the prediction, reproducibility and testability as required of a scientific explanation. As the results at times depend upon the all-powerful Creator's wishes, there are no binding cause and effect relationships and no way to verify natural laws; any continuing endeavor to effect an improvement is futile. The best that can be said for this explanation is that it is simple and easily applied.

The Deist explanation has its creator carrying out step 1 and then leaving everything to the Natural Laws he created; its observations and explanations are indistinguishable from the scientific explanation. Other views, involving all-powerful creators lead to the same conclusions as the above paragraph.

In summary, except for the Deist view, the Creationist Explanation of the Universe does not have the essentials of a scientific explanation. This does not preclude its classification as a non-science explanation.

The Scientific Explanation

The scientific explanation of modern evolution is a composite of many explanations and endless observations which verify them. This is not to say the total explanation is complete or without room for improvement for science is an ongoing effort. The following is a brief listing (#) for presentation purposes of some of the major contributing explanations and comments on their status:

1) The Origin of the Universe and Natural Laws
The origin of the universe and its natural laws are believed to have occurred in a brief period of time (10**-45 seconds) during which an extremely small, extremely intense scalar energy field started to convert into extremely hot matter. Direct evidence for this phenomenon are hard to obtain.

a. Multiverse Theory *

2) The Subsequent Evolution of the Universe
The evolution of the universe starts at its origin and continues until the present. The observed expansion of the universe allows observation of some phenomena which occurred shortly after its origin. Other observations of the current universe which were determined by phenomena in the past are also being made. Both are used to verify cosmological theories.

a. Big Bang Theory - Verified by

i. Observations of past phenomena (Cosmic Microwave Background)

ii. Observed rates of solar emissions

iii. Observed abundance of isotopes in stars

iv. Observed evolution of distant, ancient galaxies and stars

v. The structure, ages and sizes of galaxies, galaxy clusters, stars, etc

vi. Evolutionary path of stars of varying mass

vii. Properties of black holes and other dense bodies

b. String Theory * - Should provide for the proper merger of relativity and quantum theory.

c. Relativity Theory - Verified by numerous measurements of current phenomena, such as,

i. Bending of starlight passing close to sun

ii. Precession of the perihelion of Mercury

iii. Change in wavelength of light ascending in gravitational field

iv. Orbit correction to GPS for effect of gravity on time

d. Standard Model (applicable to subatomic particles) and

e. Quantum Theory (including atomic structure)
Verified by countless observations of both laboratory and field phenomena involving photons, quarks and baryonic matter, etc. over wide ranges of energy and temperature.

f. Classical Physics – Endless verification measurements

3) The Origin of Life on the Planet Earth
Life first occurred about 3.5 billion years ago, one billion years after earth's formation. Organic compounds of modest complexity are known to exist throughout space. These molecules are known to form long chain, complex molecules under electric discharges. Soft tissues are not easily preserved in the fossil record but other evidence of the start of life exists, such as, isotopic ratios, etc

a. Prebiotic Soup Theory* - Organic molecules formed replicating molecules in cold ocean.

b. Pioneer Metabolic Theory* - Replicating organic molecules at hot, ocean-floor vents.

4) The Subsequent Evolution of Life on the Planet Earth
Approximately 3.5 billion years have been available for the development of the present complex, multi-cellular life from the first simple forms. Estimated generation times, reasonable incremental survival rates and reasonable probabilities indicate that a non-random, selection process is feasible.

a. Theory of Natural Selection (slow gene changes and concurrent slow species adaptation) and

b. Punctuated Equilibrium (accumulated gene changes and later fast adaptations)

i. Adaptation of a species to several available, different niches for isolated populations.

ii. Observed inheritable, genetic changes in current populations.

iii. Many sequences of slow and rapid progression in the fossil record

iv. Co-evolution of symbiotic plants and animals

v. Geographic coexistence of malaria and sickle cell anemia

vi. Small remnants of unused appendages in modern species.

vii. Chronological progression of fossil record from simple to complex life forms.

viii. Chronological and geographic progression of migrating evolving species

ix. Universal presence of several basic functions, eg., energy utilization.

x. Successes of managed breeding programs.

xi. Rapid population expansion into niches with reduced predation

xii. Decreased populations under increased reproductive stresses

xiii. Species size reduction under restrictive food supplies for island populations

xiv. Gene studies of related species, eg, primates

xv. Structure of fossil and living clades with related, consistent genomes

xvi. Altruistic social structures of the meerkat, mole rat and other species

c. Modern Biology (including DNA, genes and inheritance)

i. Experimental support for Mendel's Laws of Inheritance

ii. Countless experiments in modern inheritance, gene, DNA

* - These theories are relatively new and have produced only preliminary results.

# - This list should not be interpreted to indicate any restrictions on the use of the theories in other steps.

Comparison of Scientific and Creationist Explanations

The validity of an explanation for a phenomenon as complex the universe's origin/evolution is based, not on one or even a few observations, but rather on the weight and consistency of the total evidence. Even with its partial list of confirming data and phenomena, when the scientific explanation is compared to the creation explanation, the scientific explanation is clearly the most predictive, reproducible and testable choice and therefore is the better scientific explanation, within the definition of science. In fact the creation explanation does not meet the minimal requirements for a scientific explanation. This should not be a surprise as the scientific explanation is the ongoing result of about 2500 years of the continuing effort of the best scientific minds the human race has produced.

To Answer the Questions Again

Having laid a brief foundation of fact, the questions are answered; in the scientific context, as follows:

Question 1: No

Question 2 Creationism is not taught in Tennessee public schools as science because it is NOT the best scientific explanation of creation and its teaching when it occurs is all too often - indoctrination. Creationism should be mentioned in science courses (physics, biology, astronomy, etc.) as a superceded scientific explanation and a question of historic importance. The teaching of creationism in non-science classes and in the context of a preferred religious belief may be unconstitutional although its incidental discussion when used as reference material in other topics should be permissible as should a non-preferential course in comparative religion.