Dr. McLeroy.........one more time!

It would be easy to just call Dr. McLeroy an idiot and move on from this topic. I believe him to be misguided in his opposition to teaching the theory of evolution, which does not make him an idiot. I have to assume that this opposition stems from his belief and not from some sinister devious plot for some other clandestine reason.

To be fair to Dr. McLeroy as well as to pursue my own understanding of this opposition, the “why” needs to be questioned. I feel that I can support my argument for the teaching of the theory as it is understood today. I believe that evolution in no way supports or denies the presence of God and to use it in such a manner is counter to what science is all about. If it happend by chance or through God has nothing to do with the theory.

As I was preparing my last entry, I came across an article he wrote called "Testable Explanations” (August 2, 2008). First off, I believe every explanation Dr. McLeroy uses to support how science, especially evolution, should be taught in public schools is motivated by one goal; to allow for the debunking of the theory. All theories should be scrutinized, challenged, and run through a meat grinder to get as close to the “truth” as we can. This is not the goal of Dr. McLeroy, his goal is to allow for a mechanism to cast doubt on the theory not to replace it with a better one, but to allow for creationism to also stand side-by-side.

So back to the question of “why” – the foundation for this need of his - crusade more like it – this zealot-like behavior put forth to discredit evolution. I conclude that it stems from his misguided belief that because evolution accepts as the foundation “natural explanations” it therefore excludes the presence or the hand of God.

“For the supernaturalist” Dr. McLeroy writes, “the phrase “natural explanations” does not just undermine his view of science but actually excludes it by definition. “

This is the battle line that has been drawn; you may only choose one – natural or supernatural. Why Dr. McLeroy sees it this way can only be speculated. I contend that he fears science because it weakens his belief or understanding of his God in the same way a child loses their belief in their parents as superhuman as they increase their understanding of the world in which they live in.

The explanation for natural phenomenon, from gravity, to reproduction, to physics, to the origin of life comes from science. There is no other way to know and understand this phenomenon other than through the use of the scientific method. What we see is the result of how it was designed to work. Whether this design is from the hand of God or through chance will never be known. It works in a particular way, a natural way, a way in which we can hypothesize and test.

Just as children may be thought of as a gift from God they do not result from a supernatural explanation. The way life on earth has gotten to this point also follows a particular methodology, it has evolved over time. This is how it appears to work based on the evidence we have encountered. There is no need to have a supernatural explanation because one is not needed. It follows a prescribed methodology seen constant – tested - over time. If God had a hand in this it was setting up the parameters. God’s creation was DNA, and DNA changes the structure of life randomly, suddenly, minutely, and quietly over time.

A strange kind of common sense

Don McLeory, our local dentist, evolution debunker, and ex-State School Board head, wrote a pretty nice article in our local paper, The Eagle (Sunday, June 7, 2009), on the virtues of keeping ideology out of the science classroom. On the surface, his argument appears very sound and echoes what the scientific community has been stating all along, that “science is the use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomenon as well as the knowledge generated through this process”. Where Dr. McLeroy and his followers find comfort is in the term “testable.”

“If it is not testable, it is not science” Dr. McLeory notes. The understanding here is that one cannot test in the laboratory or field the different hypothesis used to support the theory. This Dr. McLeory contends allows a student on “scientific grounds to challenge any untestable ideology being taught as dogma.”

The theory of evolution is not dogma, nor, for a scientist, is it an ideology. A scientific theory is:

“A plausible or scientifically acceptable, well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena and predict the characteristics of as yet unobserved phenomena.”

It is based on the use of a Hypothesis:

“A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. Scientific hypotheses must be posed in a form that allows them to be rejected.”

So the new argument that the Intelligent Design folks are using is to try to use the definition against itself, as if it will get caught in an endless loop of if-then-else logic and completely self-destruct. They use the logic that because you can’t test what took place millions of years ago, then the hypothesis is not valid, which means you can’t use it to support the theory. This logic is also used to support the inclusion of a supernatural cause. Because the supernatural causation can’t be tested either, it is just as plausible a theory as the scientific one.

The constant battle over evolution by the ID folks have hurt science in the name of trying to hold onto their own dogma and ideology. Allowing guys like Dr. McLeory to dictate what our children should or should not be taught in a public setting does nothing but muddy the waters of logical thinking. We end up confusing kids who then grow up to be confused and ignorant adults, all in the name of perpetuating the belief that their holy book is somehow the absolute, accurate, and definitive explanation as to how their God works.

In their paper “The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition A theoretical framework and implications for Science Instruction” Chinn & Brewer (1993) noted:

“The 3-week instructional unit on evolution [given to a class consisting of 50% creationists] included a section on fossil evidence for evolution. Before instruction, only 1% of the students agreed with the statement “Fossils were intentionally put on earth to confuse humans.” After instruction, however, 7% of the students agreed with the same statement.”

“For the supernaturalist” Dr. McLeory argues, “the phrase “natural explanations” does not just undermine his view of science but actually excludes it by definition. If science is limited to only natural explanations but some natural phenomena are actually the result of supernatural causes then science would never be able to discover that truth—not a very good position for science. Defining science to allow for this possibility is just common sense.”In Science you cannot allow for the possibility of something that cannot be tested. Common sense should lead you to that conclusion, which is why Dr. McLeory will use whatever method he can to keep our kids in the dark.

Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves (Matt. 7:15)