TOK Essay

Laura Fenney
Theory of Knowledge

Is science, or ought it to be, value free? What implications does your answer have for the regulation of science? Considering the fight over Intelligent Design vs. Evolution (as well as Research Scandals and Bayer Study), who should decide whether particular directions in research are pursued?

Value free science implies that science remains untainted by any moral or religious beliefs. I think that these religious beliefs and morals should not be fit in with scientific theories. In today's world church and state should remain separated not together as one. The question of mixing science with religion has long been battled out in the education system. Finally the controversy caused it to become outlawed in public schools across the United States. However, even in today’s world, religion has been repeatedly intertwined with education. It seems rational to separate religion and school, since young people are so easily influenced by knowledge of authority, which includes teachers and parents. Therefore, it should be up to the parents to establish moral guidelines and religion if they wish, not teachers.
The problem with the "theory" of Intelligent Design is that it is not actually a proven theory, and seems too similar to Creationism, which is based solely on religious beliefs not scientific evidence. Creationism is reflected in the Bible, in which Christians believe that a god created the world. On the opposite end is the process of Evolution, contradictory to Creationism, since Darwin believed that humans evolved slowly to adapt to their environment. Darwin’s Evolution is opposite to Creationism, since he believed that humans evolved and were not simply placed on earth fully equipped with all their unique traits.
Intelligent Design states that a higher “being” created the universe. Its book definition manages to differentiate its definition from Creationism because it does not state that a god made the universe. The problem is that Creationism and Intelligent Design are nearly the same with the exception of their names. Intelligent Design’s definition is phrased differently, in the hope of not being identified with Creationism. Therefore by changing Intelligent Design’s definition slightly, this “theory” was just far enough away from being religious that it was allowed into textbooks in Dover, Pennsylvania. The controversy over religion in public schools ensued afterwards.
It is impossible to prove religion using science. After all scientists do not have the power to create a formula to determine if a god created the universe. Believing in a higher being is faith not science. In science, often people who want to uncover religious truth will use Confirmation Bias because otherwise there is overwhelming evidence undermining the religious evidence that they believe they have. It is a constant struggle to prove religion in science because religion takes a leap of faith and can not be broken down into a scientific formula.
Darwin’s Inductive Theory of Evolution can not be proven and remains defined as just a theory. Although I believe that there is more evidence in that theory than in Intelligent Design. Evolution has always been a mystery to scientists because there is no exact proof that can undermine the religious claims or Intelligent Design’s claims involving a “higher being” creating the universe. However, there has been much more research in the field of Evolution than in Intelligent Design. Still it is impossible to know exactly how humans came to inhabit the earth, but for now all we can do is hypothesize potential theories of how they originated. Based on the evidence that is presented from both sides of Intelligent Design and Evolution, Evolution has a stronger argument about humans evolving for the idea of “survival of the fittest” as opposed to humans being placed on earth by a “higher being.”
It is difficult to know what direction scientific research should head because truth is nearly impossible to determine because it varies from one person to the next. I believe that particular directions in research should be determined by scientists who have great expertise in a certain area of science, whether in the hard or soft sciences. If religious scientists are dictating what religious endeavors should be pursued, then this undermines what truth might be uncovered through scientific research.
In the case of Intelligent Design in Dover, parents and teachers, who were religious, advocated that this "theory" be covered in textbooks. However, there were other teachers and parents who were religious, but saw the fault in including Intelligent Design in the classroom. The concept of mixing church and state is lethal when it comes to public schools. When the Dover textbooks began discussing Intelligent Design, then they were just advocating the religious theory of Creationism, which is the foundation of Christianity. Moreover, it is not good to forcibly teach high school students, even elementary school students this form of religious "science," which has not even been researched enough to have sufficient evidence.
Since Intelligent Design has not been researched as thoroughly as Evolution, it appears invalid to me. It seems as though it was used as a ploy to undermine Darwin's theory of Evolution in school. Even though Darwin's theory of Evolution is only a theory, as Intelligent Design advocates have frequently repeated, there is some underlying substance that has enriched the scientific field. Also there has been enough research conducted among scientists to prove that it is a worthy theory and not something just thrown together to appeal to the religious teachers and members of society.
One of Intelligent Design’s arguments was that science textbooks should include other alternative theories to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, since Evolution has been taught as though it is a fact. Therefore people in favor of Intelligent Design argued that there should be nothing wrong with putting other scientific theories about the creation of humanity into textbooks. I think that it can be positive to expose students to different ideas and theories in science and all areas of life, as well. However, I believe that Intelligent Design advocates had other motives than just trying to show students different ways of hypothesizing how humans came to be. Intelligent Design advocates tried to incorporate their own religious beliefs about a god creating the universe into the textbooks. This is a negative message because it means that any theory is valid. If Intelligent Design, virtually Creationism in disguise, is a scientific theory with little proof except for individual faith, then does that mean that anyone can just make up theories and throw them into textbooks?
Fortunately today religion and science are forced to be kept apart in the public education system. However, there are the occasional slips of certain schools, which include the case of the Dover school. Occasionally religion even plays a role in scientific investigations. This is shown through how sometimes very religious scientists will use Confirmation Bias and only look for the "god" in their investigation. This is understandable because Evolution, for example, would undermine their belief in Intelligent Design. Therefore, the scientists avoid the significance of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Confirmation Bias occurs often in areas of research, whether religious or not, because people do not want to have to throw out their theories, of which they have invested much time and effort in proving them valid.
In conclusion, when it comes to deciding where scientific research should turn, people should forget their moral and religious beliefs, and instead they should focus on the evidence in front of them. Religion is something that varies among individuals, and so I think that it should not have a place in the scientific field. Science should discard all values held by a person and instead should be about what is seen or proven. An idea should only become an established theory if it has been thoroughly investigated and has ridden itself of all religious ties. After all if religion was always incorporated into science, then half of today’s theories would have been thrown out for alternative religious interpretations.

Part 1: Essay on prescribed title

A. Understanding knowledge issues
5: Some effective links are drawn between areas of knowledge and/or ways of knowing.

B. Knower’s perspective
6: There has not been enough of an attempt to discuss different perspectives.

C. Quality of analysis of knowledge issues
3: There is some justification of main points and a coherent argument. Counterclaims have not been addressed.

D. Organization of Ideas
6: It is satisfactorily structured and organized. The word limit has been met.

20/40