The Lost World of Genesis One (25 page)

Biological evolution is an empirically derived model that suggests several descriptive mechanisms for material origins. As an
empirically derived model, it can only be agnostic concerning
teleological affirmation or denial because purpose cannot be identified by any empirical methods. The descriptive mechanisms associated with biological evolution can operate within empirical
science without dabbling in the metaphysics of teleology. Of
course that does not mean that this is how it is consistently handled in textbooks and classrooms. For example, in 1995 the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) issued a "Statement on the Teaching of Evolution."3 An initial description of
evolution used adjectives such as "unsupervised" and "impersonal." These words faced strong opposition from a variety of
outside parties and were later struck from the statement (1997
revision). More care is needed to articulate a view that, while unapologetic in its foundation in methodological naturalism,5 avoids
embracing metaphysical naturalism. A good example is in the revised statement that subsequently appeared on the NABT website, which indicates that "natural selection has no discernable [sic]
direction or goal, including survival of a species."6 The critical
word here is discernible, which makes this a more carefully nuanced and more acceptable statement of metaphysical neutrality.

On the whole science educators seem very concerned about
limiting their focus to that which is valid science.7 This is commendable. So, for example, the NABT statements regularly have
something like the following: "Evolutionary theory, indeed all of
science, is necessarily silent on religion and neither refutes nor
supports the existence of a deity or deities."' Unfortunately, although they are quick to dismiss positions which blatantly promote teleological perspectives (creationism, Intelligent Design),
there seems to be no attempt to dismiss positions that blatantly
promote dysteleology, which is equally impossible to affirm through empirical science (as they indicate). One wonders how
willing the NABT would be to rise up against a teacher who actively promotes dysteleology, and would they do so with the same
passion that they demonstrate when opposing those who support
creationism or ID? Dysteleological approaches are just as invalid
as teleological approaches in any curriculum that seeks to focus on
empirical science. Science education can promote methodological
naturalism (refusing to resort to a "God did it" explanation in
their empirical study) without indoctrinating students in metaphysical naturalism, to which we now turn.

Metaphysical naturalism is not metaphysically neutral regarding
teleology. Not content with an empirically based methodology, it
mandates the restriction of reality to that which is material. By
definition, empirical science is characterized by methodological naturalism, but once it begins propounding metaphysical naturalism, it
has overstepped its disciplinary boundaries. We noted that Genesis
assumes teleology (origins are the result of God acting with a purpose and a goal) and teaches tel-eology. That is part of its theology
and is admittedly not something subject to observation or scientific demonstration-it is a matter of belief. Many modern scientists, in contrast, assume dysteleology (no purpose or goal), but
such a conclusion is likewise part of a metaphysical system and is
not subject to observation or scientific demonstration. Even when
a divine hand cannot be observed through scientific methods, that
is insufficient reason to conclude that a divine hand does not exist
or is not active. Science is designed only to operate within the
closed system of the material universe-it ought not therefore pass
judgment on whether or not there is anything outside the material
universe. It therefore should not draw dysteleological conclusions
if it is seeking to restrict itself to valid science. This is an important
observation in the discussion of public education.

Intelligent Design has been a subject of considerable controversy in recent years in the debate concerning public education. In our
chapter on ID we drew a distinction between the issues of design
and irreducible complexity, the former being largely metaphysical
(though at times only reflecting a rational deduction), the latter
reflecting a scientific observation about the interdependence of the
parts of a structure. "Design" implies an intelligent cause rather
than an undirected process, and as such proposes a solution to some
perceived problems in biological evolution. The problem is that design refers to a rational deduction and as such is only one possible
inference from what appears to some to be irreducible complexity.'
Design by its nature can hardly avoid the transition from a rational
deduction to a metaphysical proposal accompanied by an assumption of purpose (thus affirming a teleological view).10 In contrast we
have observed that evidence or claims of irreducible complexity can
offer challenges for standard biological evolutionary theory. Such
evidence confronts the reigning paradigm by raising questions
about theories of evolutionary mechanisms that beg for solutions.

If public education is committed to the idea that science courses
should reflect only empirical science, neither design nor metaphysical naturalism is acceptable because they both import conclusions about purpose into the discussion. This is not an issue of
God, religion, faith, or church and state. It is a question about
whether the metaphysical questions about purpose (teleology)
should come into play in the science classroom, presumably adulterating that which is empirical with that which is nonempirical;
and we contend that it should not." The assertions of purposelessness (dysteleology) by materialists are objectionable to many
people of faith, and affirmation of purpose (teleological elements)
of theism, creationism or design are objectionable to many scientists. Once we rule out those approaches that represent blatant
and self-acknowledged teleological platforms (i.e., Genesis, creationism and metaphysical naturalism), we can see that what re mains in the public education debate is no longer legitimately an
issue of church and state, because neither theism per se nor any
religious system is involved in the question. Neither design nor
randomness can be proven-they are matters of deduction since
both are based on a combination of probabilities and metaphysical
presuppositions. If randomness cannot be sustained in certain
cases, that still does not "prove" design. Likewise, if design cannot
be sustained in certain cases, that does not "prove" randomness.12

If irreducible complexity is a valid observation, it should not be
ignored on the basis of its common association with a design solution. The objective is for public education to inform students of
scientifically plausible mechanisms without straying from empirical science into metaphysical teleology or dysteleology, either in
what is taught or in what is banned from the classroom.

Various models for descriptive mechanisms of material origins
could theoretically be taught, whatever their teleological underpinnings, as long as they have an appropriate level of scientific
plausibility as descriptive mechanisms. At present, however, biological evolution is the reigning paradigm. We have proposed that
Genesis 1 does not offer a competing descriptive mechanism for
material origins, and Intelligent Design likewise does not currently have a replacement model to propose. The Discovery Institute, a think tank that explores Intelligent Design, agrees with
this assessment. They do not promote a requirement to teach Intelligent Design.

Discovery Institute recommends that states and school districts focus on teaching students more about evolutionary
theory, including telling them about some of the theory's
problems that have been discussed in peer-reviewed science
journals. In other words, evolution should be taught as a
scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned. We believe this is a
commonsense approach that will benefit students, teachers,
and parents.13

On the other hand, the Discovery Institute does not agree with
legislation or policy that prohibits teachers from discussing design. "Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring
the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it does believe
there is nothing unconstitutional about discussing the scientific
theory of design in the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes efforts to persecute individual teachers who may wish to
discuss the scientific debate over design."" Here it would have to
be clarified just what is meant by the "scientific theory of design"
beyond being a reference to irreducible complexity. Consequently
it should be noted that the Discovery Institute would not agree
that teleological models do not belong in the science classroom.

For those concerned with the purity of science, the focus on descriptive mechanisms in an empirical discipline will be welcomed,
and considering legitimate weaknesses in the reigning paradigm
should pose no problem since science always accepts critiques-that
is how it develops and improves. For those concerned about the
Bible and the integrity of their theology, the descriptive mechanisms that compose the evolutionary model need not be any more
problematic for theology than the descriptive disciplines of meteorology or embryology. These descriptive mechanisms can operate
within either a teleological or dysteleological system.15 If all parties
were willing to agree to similar teleological neutrality in the classrooms dedicated to instruction in empirical science, the present
conflict could move more easily toward resolution."

In conclusion, when origins are discussed in the classroom,
empirical science should be taught. We have discussed three important criteria regarding what constitutes empirical science:

1. It is based on a material ontology and premised on methodological naturalism (this eliminates Genesis from the classroom).

2. It is focused on scientifically valid descriptive mechanisms with
their strengths and weaknesses acknowledged. So it should include critiques of Neo-Darwinism as well as other origins theories that are trying to offer better explanations of current
observations.

3. It must be teleologically neutral (this rules out Genesis, metaphysical naturalism and design).

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS

1. Genesis operates primarily within a functional ontology as a
faith system.

2. Genesis is insistent in affirming teleology with no possible
neutrality.

3. Consequently Genesis should not be taught in empirical science classrooms, for it is not empirical science.

4. Empirical science operates within a material ontology and can
be taught as a byproduct of that ontology.

5. Empirical science need not favor teleology or dysteleology and
should remain neutral on the issue as much as possible.

6. What science has to offer concerning descriptive mechanisms
of material origins can be explored in metaphysically neutral
ways without offense to biblical affirmations in Genesis 1.

7. If metaphysical naturalism were to be allowed in the science
classroom, then there would no longer be any logical reason to
ban discussion of design. Since metaphysical naturalism opposes
teleological conclusions, it functions on the same metaphysical
plane as design, which opposes dysteleological conclusions.

8. Irreducible complexity has a potential role in the empirical sci ence classroom but should not be a matter for legislation one
way or the other.

Having granted the role of empiricism in the science classroom,
our public educational systems are woefully inadequate if curricula
totally ignore metaphysics. I would not want to burden scientists
with the task of teaching metaphysics in their science classroomswhether their metaphysics agree with mine or not. Likewise we
need not introduce theology into the public curriculum, though it
may have a defensible place as an academic discipline. But somewhere students should be taught about metaphysical systems and
the alternatives, and about how a variety of metaphysical systems
could integrate with science. This is not an issue of faith, or of a
particular religion, or of biblical teaching. It is simply an issue of a
well-rounded education. "The only way around this logjam is to
decouple the philosophical (or religious) commitments from the science." 17

The fact is that even though empirical science can be taught as
such, scientists must function in an integrated world. A scientist
could be at the top of his or her scientific discipline, but that
would not mean the scientist was equipped to apply his or her
scientific expertise to the various social issues that arise in our
world. Bioethics requires an understanding of biology and of ethics. Decisions about applied technologies, genetic research, fossil
fuel use, environmental controls and a myriad of other important
issues require not only scientific training but metaphysical (philosophical and even theological) sophistication. If scientists are the
ones making decisions for how their science will find its use in
society, they must be as astute in thinking about the metaphysical
aspects as they are in thinking about the scientific issues.

It is important that we teach empirical science and teach it well.
But empirical science is not an education unto itself that can serve
all the needs of society or that can serve as the sum of one's educa tion. The physical sciences are only one branch of education, and
we dare not isolate them from the humanities or elevate them as
self-contained. As a consequence of these conclusions, I would
propose the following resolutions:

Be it resolved.-

1. that teachers of science education in the public arena should
maintain teleological neutrality to the fullest of their ability;

2. that publishers of science curricula and textbooks for public
education should maintain teleological neutrality, and that administrators and science departments should make such neutrality one of the criteria in the selection of textbooks;