Without a lot of bother as a prelude …
This came from an e-list I’m on and I thought it might be of interest to some and a break from Plame’ing to others.
On the Scopes Trial Paradox
Many scientifically inclined thinkers are wondering how, eighty years after the embarrassing Scopes Trial, we seem to be back to square one: Science has to defend itself against those who misunderstand or misconstrue the implications of Darwinian evolution, and science teachers have to re-assert their right to teach science to school children, instead of succumbing to injunctions to present evolution as an alternative mode of interpreting observed data. There is something paradoxical in the fact that so many decades after the matter was thrashed out in court and in open forums, and
after so much progress has occurred in technical science, forces have been unleashed which call for a return to pre-scientific hypotheses as to how life emerged and progresses on our planet, albeit in the garb of science, embellished with technical jargon.
There are at least two explanations for this paradox: First, we recall that the Scopes Trial was the climax of a social restlessness caused by daring new views and values in entertainment, in the use of language, in women’s attires, in calls for abolishing prohibition, etc. all of which caused the kind of fright in the hearts of the guardians of traditional morality that
jolts some ayatollahs of the Islamic world today. They felt that what they regarded as public debauchery resulted from the cold and crass advances of
human-related sciences such as sociology, psychology, and evolutionary biology. They were convinced that if children are taught that we are essentially complex machines that have emerged by chance from slime and salt water, they could not be persuaded to moral codes that urge self-restraint and cautions against premarital intimacies.
Later in the century, from about the late 1960s, there have again been major transformations in American mores and morals, which include experimentation with drugs, poor church attendance, overt skepticism towards sacred texts, teenage and extra-marital pregnancies, and promiscuity. Once again, those who are genuinely concerned about what they regard as the moral degeneration of American society, rightly or wrongly associate these changes to a godless scientific framework in which Man and mouse differ essentially in their chromosomes: otherwise, one is as insignificant and irrelevant as the other in the stretch of cosmic history. Irrespective of the truth content of this
view, it is difficult for the unsophisticated citizen to derive the Ten Commandments or their equivalent from this scientifically chaste perspective. Given that the devotees of Science are more after scientific Truths than social and cultural predicaments, the wardens of moral rectitude imagine that by re-formulating science, we can save our youth from prurient penchants and protect society from godless worldviews.
The second key to the paradox lies in this: Unlike scientific breakthroughs, social progress is not unidirectional. The most enlightened society of today has the potential for reverting to dark-age depths. Collective values can shift, if appropriate provocations come into play. Germany’s slide to Nazism is a classic instance of a fairly enlightened society was drawn to barbarism of the worst kind. In our own times, the Patriot Act, which impinges on individual freedom and the proposed tinkering with British tolerance of
hate-mongering imams are examples. Vigilance alone is not enough to preserve enlightened values. One needs to adjust to changing circumstances, and keep an eye on extremist forces on either side (Science or Religion) that can push moderates to the other extreme. If scientists ignore the corollaries of their atheistic findings (no ultimate purpose or meaning to human
existence), then no matter how cogent their theories, and how solid their factual bases, science is likely to be regarded as culture-unfriendly.
This means that without compromising its own integrity, science needs to give a more sensitive, if not sympathetic hearing to those who are touched by religion. Benign disregard for the moral implications of scientific theories, calm indifference to the spiritual longings of people, and condescending, not to say contemptuous attitude of the spokesmen for science
towards religion: all these have contributed to the current awkward state in the matter of teaching evolution in our schools.
In the face of the environmental, social, and political threats that we face, we of the twenty-first century don’t have the luxury to deepen the divides that have become the hallmark of our times. Much of our welfare depends on how sincerely and effectively men and women of goodwill from all groups in conflict come together in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, and mutual respect to make this a better world for all of us.
At a time when the United States is looked upon with considerable disdain and resentment by many for the assertion of its military might in many regions of the world, there is no need to provoke ridicule by insisting that we teach ancient poetry and metaphor as equivalent to modern science in our interpretation of natural phenomena. It would be like insisting that we also teach astrology, alchemy, and numerology in our courses on astronomy, chemistry, and mathematics.
Dr. V. V. Raman : Emeritus Professor
Rochester Institute of Technology
September 20, 2005
