The Language of Argument

4 2 6

C H A P T E R 2 0 ■ S c i e n t i f i c R e a s o n i n g

occur within a framework. Disputes over conceptual frameworks cannot be

settled by a straightforward appeal to facts. The long debate between Albert

Einstein and Niels Bohr concerning quantum theory did not turn on matters

of fact but on their interpretation. Einstein could not accept the indetermi-

nacy involved in the quantum theory’s interpretation of the world, and he

worked until the end of his life to find some alternative to it. At present, few

scientists share Einstein’s reservations.

One of the most important and fascinating revolutions in science was set

in motion by Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection. The

Darwinian revolution in biology challenged—and continues to challenge—

many common assumptions about the nature of science and also the nature

of humankind. As a result, Darwin’s views on evolution and natural selec-

tion encountered vehement opposition right from the start.

These conflicts have attracted public attention when school boards have

tried either to prevent the teaching of evolution in public schools or to re-

quire or allow alternative views, such as so-called “intelligent design,” to

be taught alongside standard evolutionary biology. In one recent case, the

school board of Dover, Pennsylvania, passed a resolution requiring teach-

ers to read a statement about “intelligent design” aloud in ninth-grade sci-

ence classes whenever evolution was taught. Eleven parents of high-school

students challenged this requirement in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area

School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005). In his opinion, U.S. Dis-

trict Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, partly

because it depends on “its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents,” so

the school district’s requirement therefore violated the Establishment Clause

of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

This debate between natural selection and intelligent design, thus, has not

only scientific but also legal and religious dimensions. The following selec-

tions represent this debate at its best. Michael Behe (professor of biochem-

istry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania) is one of the most prominent

proponents of intelligent design, and Philip Kitcher (professor of philosophy

at Columbia University) is one of his most profound critics. They focus on

simple examples that are supposed to cause problems for the Darwinian ap-

proach to evolution. These case studies raise more general issues about the

nature of religion, the nature of science, and the relation between religion and

science—issues that remain alive today in pulpits, classrooms, and courts.

To get simplistic objections out of the way first, explain what is wrong with

Stephen Colbert’s satirical refutation of Darwin’s theory of evolution in the fol-

lowing passage:

Hey kids! Now you can disprove evolution in your own backyard. Here’s what you’ll

need: one fishbowl, one pitcher of water, one hamster, alive, and one hardbound copy,

Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species... and now here’s the experiment....

Discussion Question

97364_ch20_ptg01_423-448.indd 426 15/11/13 12:09 3M

some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materiallyCopyright 201^3 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,

affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.