What Wendee was replying to was inspired by the recent decision in Oklahoma
to require a disclaimer, like that already adopted in Alabama, in textbooks
that teach evolution. As most of you know, these "disclaimers" are thinly
veiled attempts to get students and teachers to dismiss the theory of
evolution. They remind students that evolution is "unproven" (yet they don't
insist on disclaimers in physics textbooks though the laws of thermodynamics
and gravity are similarly "unproven"), and give a slanted (but with some
basis in reality) presentation of weaknesses in the theory. The implication
is that if you asked the hard questions the textbook writers were afraid to,
you wouldn't believe in evolution.
I was observing that, despite the wrongheadedness of these particular
efforts, there was a legitimate concern about "evolution" being used to
undermine religion, because of the God-excluding *meaning* erroneously
assigned to evolution by people like Richard Dawkins (which sometimes leaks
into textbooks). So I jotted down an alternative "disclaimer" which
addressed what I saw as the real problem.
I don't know that I'd actually advocate trying to get textbook publishers or
states to adopt this disclaimer. I think I'd prefer education and pressure
on publishers and teachers to be sure they don't infer extrascientific
meaning, leveraging off the recent removal of the metaphysical judgments
"unsupervised" and "impersonal" by the National Association of Biology
Teachers from their definition of evolution. But perhaps something like this
could be offered as a substitute in states or communities threatened with
adoption of the Alabama disclaimer. Any comments on potential uses for such
a "disclaimer", along with constructive criticism on the statement itself,
would be welcome.
For completeness, here is my draft of the "disclaimer":
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This textbook teaches the theory of evolution, a theory which has caused some
controversy (often needlessly).
You should remember that science never "proves" anything with 100%
mathematical certainty. Instead, scientists gather evidence, test
hypotheses, and try to draw conclusions about what theories best describe the
physical world. Like any other scientific result (including those that we
take for granted such as the law of gravity or the existence of atoms),
evolution cannot be said to be 100% "proven." However, the evidence in
nature for most aspects of the theory of evolution is so strong that, while
there are still some unanswered questions and areas where scientists
disagree, the basic theory is almost universally accepted. Evolution is
therefore an essential part of your education.
You must also remember that, like all science, evolution is just a
description of nature. It cannot give any answers to questions outside the
realm of nature, such as questions of ultimate purpose and meaning. For
example, it is wrong to draw any conclusions from evolution about possible
supernatural involvement (or lack thereof) in the process, because the
science of evolution can only talk about what is within nature. If your
textbook or your teacher or your classmate tries to tell you that evolution
proves that the development of life was "undirected" or "impersonal", they
are improperly drawing philosophical conclusions from the science.
Please learn the theory of evolution well -- it is sound science and it is
one of the most important aspects of science today. But if people try to
attach some philosophical meaning to evolution, be aware that they are going
far beyond the areas that science can legitimately address.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
"Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cats"