God and the science classroom

You have to love the feisty self-important nature of a young student’s zeal without knowledge. Yes, they get a mere taste of freedom, abscond my good ol' mommy’s apron strings and after one or two classes are quite prepared to give the world what f'r.

Such was the case with the article, Theology, religion should be kept out of science class, written by Jessica K. Friedman to Albuquerque’s University of New Mexico’s newspaper, the Daily Lobo (September 7, 2009 AD)

There had been bit of a fracas as to God/theology/intelligent design in the science class. Let us parse the article:

It is true that we have little scientific evidence that the first DNA molecule formed by chance. Many believe that DNA was formed from the template of another, self-reproducing molecule…there is no scientific evidence of the existence of God.

Note that while “we have little scientific evidence” for a first chance arranged DNA we have “scientific evidence of the existence of God.”
This is mistaken on various levels:
1) We do not have little scientific evidence for a first chance arranged DNA; we have none whatsoever. In fact, if “chance” is to be given a place of function and causation then we could “explain” the DNA, life, the Earth, the universe itself by merely appealing to the chance of the gaps. Oh, wait, this is precisely what many people believe. Incidentally, note the unscientific appeals to the unknown, un-observed, un-evidenced, un-proven, un-experimented upon template of another self-reproducing molecule.
Now, some scientists would argue that the reason that we no evidence of chance caused DNA—which is to anthropomorphize “chance”—is that scientists do not believe in chance caused DNA. Referring to such an assertion, “that chance, by itself, cannot account for the genetic information found in the genomes of organisms” biologist Francisco Ayala of the University of California, Irvine states,

I agree. And so does every evolutionary scientist, I presume.

However, Richard Dawkins prefers to rely upon “luck” for his “explanation”

^{It is as though, in our theory of how we came to exist, we are allowed to postulate a certain ration of luck}.1

Also, there are a myriad of fanciful and failed theories as to how life came about.

2) While it is claimed that we have little scientific evidence chance arranged DNA (note that the student is being well trained as they provide no references, no quotations, no citation at all but merely assert that we have some evidence, even if it is “little”) it is claimed as for God, we have no evidence.
This is a category mistake as DNA is material while God is not. Science deals with the material and has nothing to say about the immaterial. Some mistakenly “reason” that science has nothing to do with the immaterial but that science has disproven the immaterial. ^{What would scientific evidence of God look like?} For example, can an immaterial being be expected to leave behind material evidence? Do we look for wet evidence of a dry object?
Yet, just as wind is invisible but we see its effects—the trees swaying, the particles of dust and humidity being blown about—God is invisible but we see God’s effects—such as the fine tuned universe.

Moreover,

…there is no scientific evidence of the existence of God. There is also no scientific evidence of aliens putting humans on earth, giant space worms living below ground controlling everything, or a variety of other things that I can think of.

Personages such as Francis Crick proposed that aliens putting humans on earth—directed panspermia—for two reasons: 1) he ascertained that DNA is information based and thus he was an early proponent of intelligent design (ID) as this is ID’s premise (more on this in the next segments) and 2) because our myriad of theories are utterly inadequate to the task. This truly was a case of proposing ID as, against the opinion of pop-culture based media misinformation, ID is not about identifying the designer but merely identifying the design (more on this in the next segments). Thus, Crick identified design but, being an atheist, chose to appeal to alien panspermists.
Simply stated, and as one example, the universe’s fine tuning is amounting more and more evidence of the existence of a creator. ^{The fact that materialists’ best explanation for fine tuning is to say that if it were not so we would not be here to discuss it or to invent, literally invent, a multiverse of the gaps shows just how solid and compelling is the evidence for fine tuning} (see here and here).

Note also that the correlation between God, aliens, giant space worms, etc. is as fallacious as it is ubiquitous. Such statements are tantamount to stating, “I want everyone to know—in this case via the printed media and the world wide web—that I am utterly ignorant of natural theology aka general revelation!!!”
Indeed, be it Invisible Pink Unicorns, Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Great Juju the fact is that natural theology / general revelation compiles the very best that science and philosophy has to offer as to the cause of the universe.
By it we infer that which creation implies: that it had a creator and that we can even ascertain some of the creator’s characteristics. Through it, we can put claims of gods, aliens, giant space worms, etc. to the test and see which passes—this is detailed in an essay at this link.

Furthermore:

In science class, we are supposed to teach things that are discovered and tested using the scientific method. We are only supposed to teach things for which there is direct evidence. Just because I can think of a possible way that DNA came into existence doesn’t mean I’m allowed to teach it without evidence.

The operative term, the qualifier, is “are supposed to.” That which one is “supposed to” do and that which one actually does can be very, very different things.
Now, what evidence is there for the scientific method? You cannot use the scientific method to answer as that would be circular logic.
Firstly, the scientific method, as well as the fields of science, was intelligently designed mostly by theists who believed that God is a rational being who created a rational creation. This belief leads to the conclusion that within the material realm material cause is followed by material effect. This observation leads to the realization of continuity and this leads to the scientific method.
Secondly, the scientific method—just as any and every idea, worldview, philosophy, theology, etc.—is ultimately, au fond/at bottom, premised upon, based upon, built upon axioms that are un-proven and un-evidenced and are intuited or assumed. In this sense; we are all metaphysicians—from the most dogmatic theist to the most dogmatheistic materialist. This is why the scientific method cannot explain the scientific method. This is why reasoning to reason via reason is unreasonable. Etc.

Next, it is simply inaccurate to flatly state that, “We are only supposed to teach things for which there is direct evidence” since science class is also about leaning theories—this leads to voluminous misunderstandings as teachers and students alike often cannot seem to distinguish between fanciful theory and empirical fact. Not to mention that (ok, mentioning) ^{science is only about attempting to propose the very best guess that we have thus far}.
This is why it is further confused to state, “Just because I can think of a possible way that DNA came into existence doesn’t mean I’m allowed to teach it without evidence” since you can teach a theory and all that is taught about how DNA came into existence is taught, in essence, without evidence.

The article states that following about “macroevolution”:

(a fallacious term coined by proponents of intelligent design — microevolution and macroevolution are the same thing). It is very childish to assume that small changes that are well documented (evolution of drug resistance, for example) could not add up over a very long amount of time to yield large changes. The existence of similarities between animals is very good evidence of evolution.

Proponents of the distinction between micro and macro evolution would argue that micro is evidenced while macro is not. They would argue that to claim that micro leads to macro is to make an un-evidenced and un-warranted leap. And what do we find here? Just that, unwittingly so. Note the statement above: micro is “well documented” and macro is that to which the micro “could” “add up over a very long amount of time.” That is just the point; the move is from well documented evidence to imagining that it could add up to the un-documented un-evidenced macro; assuming the time of the gaps.
But is it really un-documented and un-evidenced? After all, reference was made to “The existence of similarities between animals” and this is supposed to be “very good evidence of evolution.” Firstly, the topic was micro versus macro what? Evolution. Micro evolution versus macro evolution. Thus, to then conclude that “The existence of similarities between animals” is “very good evidence of” undefined lacking a qualifying term “evolution” is to drop out of the micro versus macro discussion. Secondly, “The existence of similarities between animals” and this is supposed to be “very good evidence of [macro] evolution” if, and only if, you come to the table with a presupposition of macro evolution, already assuming that all of life comes from a mythical common ancestor. Another presupposition would look at “The existence of similarities between animals” and conclude that this is “very good evidence of” a common designer.

Lastly,

The study of theology and religion does not belong in science class, because it is not science. I don’t go barging into English literature classes demanding that biology be taught…the existence of God should not be discussed in science class.

Now, what do we do when a student makes this claim but a professor of biology who is in charge of the public understanding of science states otherwise?
Professor Richard Dawkins stated, “^{the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other}.”2

In any case, it is appealing to affirm the correlation between the science class discussing God and the English class teaching biology. Yet, the science class has long, if not always, a place wherein worldview adherence plays a huge role. For example, consider the essay Protecting the Science Classroom wherein it is evidenced that even, if not especially, today, the atheist are smuggling in their worldviews into the science class’ back door. In fact, they are not smuggling it in the back door but making students pay for it as they bring it in through the front door, in the textbooks.

There is no reason not to discuss within the science class whether God’s existence should or should not be discuss within the science class. Now, if by God in the science class it is meant that when we come upon some problem, some unknown, we simply say, “Well, God must'a dun it!” Then indeed, this does not belong in the science class room. Yet, natural theology / general revelation could be considered a scientific subject.

Recall that the statement was made that “there is no scientific evidence of the existence of God” and now we learn that the “study of theology it is not science.” Do you notice the avoidance tactic? First, you assert that “there is no scientific evidence of the existence of God” and then that the “study of theology it is not science.” Therefore, you have created a system according to which scientific evidence of God is not only lacking—“there is no”—but is actually impossible—“it is not science.”

Lastly, the reason that detecting design and perhaps even seeking to ascertain the designer’s characteristic is a scientific issues is the following: as opposed to pop-culture and the media, ID does not argue that some things are so complex that God must'a dun it. ID proponents are constantly begging pop-culture-media to stop mischaracterizing their position. ID proposes a theory that does belong in the science class—at least aspects of the science class—as it proposes that DNA, that is life, is composed of information and the one and only, scientifically evidenced and verified, known source of information is mind.

------------------------

For more info on how materialists appeal to time, chance and matter see The Gap Filler

Also, find a selection of science related essays please see this link

1. 1. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker-Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1986), p. 145
2. 2. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2006), p. 50