Theoretically Thinking

by Venomous Kate

Like a lot of people living in Kansas, I’ve been thinking about the theory of evolution quite a bit lately. It’s hard not to think about it, what with the media coverage and late-night talk show hosts’ jokes about our Board of Educations recent hearings over the issue of teaching the “flawed” theory of education in our schools.

When I haven’t been thinking about the Board’s mentally masturbatory machinations, I’ve been thinking that lately it seems like every day brings another news story about a child who’s been murdered, abducted, molested or raped. I can’t fathom the horrid evil lurking within that could lead a person to commit such despicable acts. I know that such people exist, that they come in all guises, from all walks of life, and that there’s no way to tell at a glance the difference between the good guys and the bad.

As a parent, I’m terrified by those stories and try to push them out of my mind. But I can’t. Part of my responsibility as a parent is to remember those perils and to both protect my son from them as well as educate him about them. But part of my parental responsibilities also include teaching my son to be outgoing, socially confident, and polite to others.

It’s such a fine line, teaching kids to simultaneously acknowledge something while also doubting it. But just because it’s a fine line doesn’t mean that it can’t be done. The thing is, we underestimate children when we don’t.

When I was a kid, our neighborhood consisted of white, upper middle-class suburbanites. Period. The overwhelming majority of those homes consisted of two parents, and usually the mother stayed home while the father worked. Anyone whose family structure didn’t fit within that mold was “different,” as some of our neighbors discovered when they divorced and found themselves no longer included at the Thursday night Bridge games that rotated between the married folks’ homes. All of us kids understood that divorced people were considered somehow dangerous, and that was enough for us to begin shying away from the children of divorced parents, too.

Then divorce became much more common — so common that my parents got one, too. The adults in my life no longer seemed to care whether their friends were married or single… as long as the person was heterosexual. Being gay was too ‘different’, and those divorced people who began same-sex dating were considered too threatening to be around… and so were their kids. Since I grew up in California’s Bay Area, it wasn’t long before there were enough gay couples in our neighborhood that they no longer seemed so ‘different.’ As long as they were white, that is.

When the Tech boom hit and our area became known as Silicon Valley, the racial and religious composition of our neighborhood began to rapidly change. An Hispanic couple moved in across the street while a recently-immigrated Vietnamese family moved in next door. My best friend moved (after her father decided he was gay and filed for divorce), and an African-American family bought their home. Suddenly, “different” was no longer something that anyone could really define anymore.

Throughout my childhood, I never once paused to wonder why “different” meant bad but only until we knew and liked someone we’d once considered different. Then, because we saw that we had some things in common with them despite our differences, they weren’t so “different” anymore. That someone’s family structure didn’t mirror our own, that our accents or skin colors varied, that we didn’t attend the same church or even believe in the same God was not nearly as important as whether we shared the same values of honesty, respectfulness, and goodness to others.

These changes didn’t take place just in my neighborhood. The “politically correct” language born in the 1980s; the self-esteem and diversity programs cultivated in the American school system over the past thirty years; the EEOC legislation affecting workplaces throughout the nation and their “hate crimes” counterparts outside the workplace; even the post 9/11 uproar over racial profiling all bear witness to the transformation that has taken place throughout our society. “Different” is no longer wrong. One would think these advances would mean that we’d socially evolved.

And yet, in the state of Kansas where I live, we keep hashing the Scopes Monkey Trial of 80 years ago because people have different guesses as to the origins of the human race.

Here, where the court nearly shut down our state’s school system due to such poor funding that it was unconstitutional, we spent thousands of dollars on hearings because the theory of evolution is different from what 6 out of 10 Board of Education members believe to be true.

The theory of evolution, they claim, is “too flawed” to be taught in our schools. In its place, the Board wants to teach our children about “Intelligent Design” — which presupposes the existence of an intelligent agent or agents who set about the workings of the universe. And, while both sides of the argument can point to physical evidence in support of their theory, neither can prove theirs with unassailable empirical evidence.

How sad that the very people responsible for determining the curricula studied by children throughout our State have forgotten one remarkable, uncontrovertable fact: children learn what to believe by watching adults. Here in Kansas with our underfunded schools and out-dated textbooks, the main lesson we’re teaching our kids is that something is true only when the majority of people in power believe that it is.

What’s next? Pontius Pilate for School Board President?

UPDATE: Submitted to OTB’s Traffic Jam.

5 Responses to “Theoretically Thinking”

  1. I, too, have been following to trial in KS as I lived there while in the Army and college. It is all about the religious right that is behind this issue. This is one of the reasons I left the Republican Party many years ago. Two things left out of conversations are Politics and Religion. Mixing the 2 is rather explosive.

    Being a Brat, I am different. Since your husband is retiring soon, maybe your son wont feel that “difference”. It was a good “difference” and one I am proud of even if dad was gone for 4 years during WW II. 3 grade schools and 3 high schools didn’t help either. Constantly changing friends was hard. I suspect that your son will be ok. It could be worse. This could be the late 60′s and you could be near Berkeley. Loved the music but hated the way the military was treated.

  2. kate, i’ve been away since your hiatus. just discovered you are blogging again! niec to have you back.

    allen. it’s about the religious right? didn’t kate outline two beliefs? funny how it’s about the religious right. they aren’t allowed to express their belief?

    why can’t both be offered? and noted as theories.

  3. (This became … long. As only a rare commenter, I hope this is not too much.)

    mlah -

    Because “theory” doesn’t mean “idea.” And “science” is not a religion, to be “believed.”

    One of the main problems in this debate is the obfuscation of scientific terms in service to an elastic ideology. Lots of watchers of these evolution vs. “ID” debates think that “theory” means “idea,” when it doesn’t. That is what they’re told, exclusively by the “ID” proponents (who are overwhelmingly Christian in religious affiliation), but that’s not right. A theory is a tested explanation that has been beaten on for years and years and has not buckled under the stress. A theory is not something a scientist “believes” in, without numbers, notes, and tests – it’s a proposed model that s/he can hold up against all other ideas and say, “beat THIS.” And if someone can, following the rules of rigorous inquiry, then that idea becomes the new theory.

    In science one begins with data and observation, and tries to come up with an explanation. In ID the proponents have started with their explanation – God did it – and gone looking for facts to support it. Cherry-picking is not science either.

    So far, there has been no supportable evidence of “intelligent design” in any physical structure in a living thing observed to date. The more research done, the better our understanding of what we did not know before. And as we explain more, there are fewer available examples of “intelligent design,” which are invariably phenomena we have not explained YET. So far none of the examples of “irreducibility” have held up under scrutiny and experiment. It’s another weakness of that approach. Mr. Dembski, of the Discovery Institute, points to the structure and mechanism of cilia as an example of irreducibility – a structure that could not ever have developed without guidance – but research has now identified most of the proteins involved, found them in other organisms and used for other purposes (disproving the uniqueness of those molecules), and has made substantial progress in determining the mechanisms of motion in the structure.

    There are no experiments to support “intelligent design,” because such experiments would have to prove the existence of God by demonstrating conclusively that no other explanation of a given phenomenon is physically possible. It’s logically impossible to prove a negative. One cannot disprove every alternative explanation besides God, since you can always come up with more hypotheses.

    “Intelligent design” has met none of the rigorous requirements science requires of its models. There is no falsifiability, no prediction of future behavior, no plausible experimentation to support or contradict it. So it’s not science. And it has no place in a science classroom, because treating a hodgepodge of unproven and untested inferences as a valid “theory” alongside tens of thousands of years of collected personal effort cheapens and denigrates the rational process which has rewarded humanity with so much knowledge and progress over the past five hundred years.

    And to Kate – I’m glad to see you back, too. I have commented here VERY little, but I enjoy reading your posts. I’d really like to steal your last paragraph and pass it along to my students. May I?

    CS

    (And the Preview function is FAN-TAS-TIC.)

  4. You’re welcome to it, Captain. And thank you!

  5. Trackbacks


Switch to our mobile site