Thoughts in a Haystack

It's Blog Against Theocracy weekend and here is a good example. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, imagines himself an expert on science. He reveals himself to be utterly ignorant of it and poor at philosophy, sociology and government too. In a piece entitled "'Both Wrong and Dangerous' - Scientists Have Worldviews, Too" at the Christian Post, he complains about an article by Charles C. Haynes, senior scholar at the First Amendment Center:

Haynes cites an article in The New York Times in which Leslie Kaufman reported: "Critics of the teaching of evolution in the nation's classrooms are gaining ground in some states by linking the issue to global warming, arguing that dissenting views on both scientific subjects should be taught in public schools."

Haynes then responds: "At first blush, who can possibly object? After all, intellectual freedom should be the cornerstone of a good education in a democratic society. Of course students should be taught to be critical thinkers. Of course they should be exposed to legitimate scientific questions and debates in science classes."

He then asks: "But are these bills really about academic freedom - or are they driven by politics and religion?"

He answers his own question when he proceeds to argue that scientists alone can determine the scientific debate. "Genuine academic freedom means exposing students to how scientists determine what is and isn't controversial in science - and then helping students understand how the scientific method is used to resolve unanswered questions about any and all scientific theories," Haynes insists. "Scientists and science educators should decide what our kids need to learn about science, not legislators or religious advocacy groups."

[S]cientists alone can tell us what is and is not controversial or debatable. The call to "teach all sides" can only be passed to the scientists, who can tell us what the sides are. If there are credible scientific alternatives, these must be "peer-reviewed in science journals before being presented as science in public schools." The public schools, he insists, should not be a battleground for ideological warfare.

... Like so many others, he seems to assume that the world of science is a sanitized and self-regulating world of pristine knowledge. ...

Alternative theories or arguments must be "peer-reviewed in science journals?" Tell that to the scientists who have questioned the supposed consensus on climate change, whose access to peer-reviewed journals has been, we now know, blocked by supposedly "neutral" peer reviewers. ...

When it comes to evolutionary science, the same issues present themselves - and have since the dawn of the controversy. Once again, there is no non-ideological science, and there is no shortage of political implications. ...

Link - Posted by John Pieret @ 10:34 PM