Here we go again.

I copied the following article from one that I wrote for my blog at StumbleUpon.

I suppose that it's time for me to comment on the whole evolution-versus-intelligent-design issue that is in the news right now.

The image above links to a piece in The New York Times. As with every piece on the up-coming court battle over the Dover, PA, school board's decision to mention intelligent design in the biology curriculum, I feel frustration in reading it. The problem is not so much in the reporting as in the general lack of education and understanding on both sides.

Contrary to the picture painted by the controversialists, there is a real middle ground. Being able to see the middle ground and to see that it is worth standing on, however, requires a proper understanding of the philosophy of science.

First of all, everyone should recognize that no scientific theory can ever be proved true. (See Thomas Kuhn's classic, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.) It is always a possibility that future observations, as-yet undiscovered evidence, may cause the currently prevailing theory---however firmly entrenched it now seems to be---to be thrown out, never again to be considered as a candidate for "truth". Look, for example, at what happened to Newtonian mechanics. Even better, look at what happened to Darwin's own theory of smooth, gradual, continuous evolution. In each case, the old theory had to be thrown out and a replacement sought. Now we have general relativity in mechanics and punctuated equilibrium in evolution. Who knows how long these will last? It might even be that with super-advanced science a thousand years from now, someone will look back on our view in which we imagine the earth as going around the sun and think, "How quaint."

In any event, if the "science advocates" would admit the fundamental principle that no scientific theory can ever be considered a truth, and if the religious fundamentalists would recognize this admission, then we should have at least the beginnings of accommodation.

Second, it should be noted that although science progresses by the ruling out of scientific theories, the process of ruling them out is not one in which religious faith or philosophical predisposition plays a part. A theory is tested against repeatable observations. If crucial new observations come along, and a theory survives (for the time being), then that's interesting. If crucial new observations come along, and a theory is thereby ruled out, then that's interesting, too. The science classroom should be about identifying for students those theories that stand up to the observational test. Moreover, the scientific communities in which the theories are developed are the right authorities for determining which theories are consistent with the present state of observational knowledge. No one else is competent to do so.

When the school board or the state tries to intervene in what should be a purely scientific matter, then the educational process is broken. Note carefully: I am not claiming that such intervention is the cause of the brokenness; the intervention may just be a symptom of a more fundamental brokenness. For example, if a scientific theory be taught as if it were a "truth" or a "fact", and not merely a theory that happens to fit the observational facts, then the educational process is broken even before the state tries clumsily to intervene in order to "fix" things.

The state or the school board is right to mandate that we call a theory a theory and not call it a fact. The intervention goes too far, however, if it introduces a non-scientific theory for consideration in a science class.

My recommendation is that every student (and adult controversialist) be required to take a course dedicated to the philosophy and history of science. This is more valuable than "learning biology" or "learning physics", and even the student who would otherwise not take a science course should be required to study the philosophy.