Unfiltered:
Hello sirs,
My name is Matthew and I am a Year 2 Industrial Design student who's currently taking the GEQ1000 module at the moment.
Firstly, I'd like to thank you and your team for the work and effort that has gone into running a module that can be a challenging one to teach. I believe many of the students who go through this course will find themselves more thoroughly equipped with the skills of critical thinking, questioning and analysis.
My purpose of writing this email is to raise a concern regarding the recent physics readings. I am drawing reference in particular to phy-2-3: reverse questioning and pseudoscience. I apologize in advance for the length letter ahead, and also for my tone at times (which I am using to illustrate a point with fervor).
In pages 10 to 13, you have included the statement adopted by the AAPT, 2005 with no clarification provided. This statement purports that 'biological and cosmological evolution are theories strongly supported' and are therefore considered scientific whereas theories such as creation science and intelligent design are considered 'unscientific' or pseudoscience. It further pushes the boundaries by asserting that "teachings against evolution" cannot be endorsed, nor can the teaching of scientific creationism or intelligent design be endorsed.
It has to be called out that such a statement is a clear double standard and runs completely inconsistent with all the teachings in the initial documents of the physics segment (and philosophy, for that matter). Here is a compelling reasoning:
You have considered Creation Science (CS) and Intelligent Design (ID) as 'pseudoscience' on the premises of (1) the desired conclusion has been assumed , (2) it seeks evidence that supports the conclusion and ignores evidence and arguments to the contrary. Fair enough. However, do you not realize how Evolutionary Science (ES) crumbles to join the 'pseudoscience' gang as well when placed under the same scrutiny?
Here's why:
(1) Evolution Science assumes the conclusion that all complex life develops from simple fragments or parts over the course of time and chance. It also assumes the conclusion that the origin of life can be explained atheistic-ally.
Anyone with critical-thinking ability and access to information can quickly find out the roots of evolutionary science. "Evolutionary scientists" (at least that is what they call themselves) carry an agenda of explaining away the possibility of God/a supreme being, and thus utilized Darwin's postulates to their own advantage. Not only do they not have the decency to be transparent about their own biases and assumed conclusions, they pass of Darwin's observations on natural selection as sheer proof of evolution (even though this has been strongly debated to NOT be the case). However, because of these historical attempts of passing off ES as legitimate science, many have come to believe that ES holds true, even though the scientific community has NEVER ever reached a consensus of said theory.
(2) Evolution Science is guilty of seeking evidence to support its conclusions and ignoring the contrary.
There are many problems with ES, which have been unscrupulously shoved aside or explained unsatisfactorily. If this requires substantiation, I am happy to do so. ES has casually explained away:
A. Its contradiction to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (one of the best proven laws in physics)
B. The complete lack of redundancies of 'evolutionary parts' when observing the fossil record
C. The lack of a propagating mechanism for evolution (Natural Selection is an extremely weak argument for evolution, and interestingly, is a stronger support for CS)
D. The incredibly low likelihood of mutation as a mechanism for genetic variation (that is capable of bringing about sustainable evolution)
E. Problems with the geological timescale
F. The problem with the self-assembly of DNA and protein synthesis (Based on Miller's [failed] spark chamber experiment, the 'primordial soup' theory is more likely to bring about death than life)
G. A philosophical argument here: the existence of consciousness and rationalism (There are 2 necessary conditions for us to be capable of understanding the world around us empirically: The first being that the world is rational and logical, and the next being that our minds function rationally as well to comprehend this world. If we claim that this world and our minds have been developed through an irrational, unguided process, then how can we even dare to trust that the reasoning and logic from our minds is sound?)
H: A moral argument here: If ES is the dominant reality, then it would be acceptable (more than acceptable, it would be encouraged) that we eliminate people we perceive as threats to us and that we ought to go about copulating as much as we can for the survival of our genes. If anyone disagrees, then they have failed to keep a worldview consistent with the prevailing reality.
I: Discovered living tissue in dinosaur fossils
J: The problem with the Cambrian explosion
K: The problem with 'trilobite tracks'
L: The problem with a common ancestor: the study of homology strongly disagrees with ES
M: Here's a truly scientific one: The scientific method relies on observations and repeated testing. Newsflash: Evolution is NEITHER observable nor repeatable.
You see my point, I could add in dozens more problems to this list that ES has ignored and cannot explain in a scientific manner. To assert that ES is 'scientific' and therefore should be taught, while CS and ID should not be taught, is a clear double standard - it is skewed reasoning and sheer hypocrisy. At best, Evolutionary Science is equally as 'scientific' or equally as 'unscientific' as CS or ID. There is no reasonable basis to put ES on a pedestal.
But I am not done.
The slides claim (I quote) that "to deny children exposure to the evidence in support of biological and cosmological evolution is akin to allowing them to believe that atoms do not exist or that the Sun goes around the Earth." Of all places, the last place I'd expect to see a fallacy of such an order is in a class on questioning. How are the two parts of this equation the same? The former is a theory whereas the latter are facts. Granted, it may be a statement by the American Association of Physics Teachers, but should we not, as educators, carry the responsibility of pointing out faulty reasoning? A word of discretion is still better than stark silence.
And the statement continues on to express how they cannot condone the teaching of CS and ID as valid scientific theories. Considering that ES is equally as unscientific as these theories, should we not do ourselves a favour and teach them all? And let the young (and old) minds of our generation exercise their mental faculties and make their own judgments? Why is one taught over the other when both are equally unscientific? If CS and ID are so invalid as scientific theories as the institution paints them out to be, then what is the fear of teaching it? What are educators afraid of? If they are truly invalid, then the rigor of questioning will tear those theories down naturally. Yet, it seems that the institution (which may include NUS) seems to hold back on doing so, almost seemingly with a hidden agenda. To argue otherwise would lead to the conclusion that the university, then, is faulty in its reasoning as a whole. In the worst case scenario (that's not far from the reality), the education system, then, is a complete flop.
One more thing.
The slides say: "science has nothing to say about the existence or nonexistence of God because it studies only natural processes, not supernatural processes." I can't stress how misguided this statement is - it shows a complete lack of understanding about the implications of the existence or nonexistence of God, or a supreme being for that matter.
Here's why: Suppose the premise that God exists is true. This will mean that all creation, including nature itself, is brought about by God. Will not the natural processes reveal the originator of the universe? If an artist creates a painting, will not the strokes, style, textures, inspiration, etc. reflect the identity of the true artist behind it? It is completely absurd to think that we can only be informed about God because He is supernatural by definition. By definition, He is the one who defines nature should He exist. The problem with the statement in the slides is that it creates a false dichotomy between the natural and supernatural, without realizing that the immediate implication of the existence of God is that His authorship will also be imprinted in nature.
If one would like to clarify the above statement to say that the term 'science' in this case refers to the scientific method, then one could also proceed to reason that the study of 'historical science' (a field of science that is more suited to study historical events , origins and things of the past) likewise deals with natural elements as well. It studies fossils, Homology, molecular biology, archaeology - all to do with natural processes! It is the scientific method (empiricism) that is the hindrance to the understanding of the possibility of God, not science itself!
For the record, the last few slides on "well-known scientists who also believe in God" are not any consolation and seems strategically placed there to avoid the dissent of students who may hold on firmly to faith and the belief in God. This worldview argues firmly for the existence of creation, not evolution. Yet, in all the slides, evolution science has been the only worldview to be implied as scientific. Therefore, what you are essentially saying (though not explicitly) is that these scientists would have considered ES as scientific, and CS as unscientific, and that their scientific views actually oppose the fundamental worldview that they hold. That is a slap to the face of science, not an encouragement to students who believe in God (as may have hoped).
I believe I have expressed sufficiently what I needed to. Again, I do apologize if any of the things mentioned undermines the Q team's efforts to bring about rigor in the questioning of our students' minds. However, I sincerely hope that there can be some sort of clarification or response as to why were these information presented in the way they were, and why was there a lack of discretion in doing so.
Once again, I thank you sirs and the Qteam for your tremendous efforts in this module. I am interested in hearing from you.
Yours Sincerely,
Matthew
Year 2 Industrial Design
No comments:
Post a Comment