신과학/철학
초심리학/잠재능력
UFO/신물리학
오컬티즘/미스터리

과학적, 비과학적 의학
동서양 대체의학

창조론/과학적 사실성
창조론/철학과 정치

스켑틱스/기타 주제
KOPSA 박물관

 

대중매체 모니터링
질문과 답

토론방법
토론사례

연구회원 게시판
연구위원 게시판

 

창조론/철학과 정치
   
  최근 미국과 영국의 진화론, 창조론 교육 논쟁
  글쓴이 : kopsa     날짜 : 02-03-23 13:50     조회 : 8340    
최근 미국과 영국의 진화론, 창조론 교육 논쟁 

약간 오래 전이지만 2001년 4월 11일 국민일보에 실린 "진화론 반박 ‘제2
창조론’ 득세"라는 기사를 유심히 보았습니다. 지적 설계론(intelligent
design theory)을 제2 창조론이니, 고등설계론이니 하며 새로운 기운이라고
소개하고 있었습니다.

1. 미 오하이오 주 논쟁

우리 나라의 진화론에 반대한 창조론 주장은 창조과학(creation science)입
니다. 한국의 창조과학회가 지적 설계론을 거부하고 창조과학을 고수한다
는 내용은 앞서 게시한 바 있습니다. 그러나 미국에서는 1987년 미 대법원
이 창조과학의 도입을 위헌으로 판결한 이후 지적 설계론이 전면에 나서고
있습니다.

지적 설계론이란 '틈새의 하나님'(God in the gaps)을 넣는 것입니다. 이곳
게시판에 '틈새의 하나님'이 설명돼 있지만, 지적 설계론의 구체적 양상은
언제 (공부하여)정리하겠습니다. 이들은 대체로 과학에서 말하는 지구의 나
이와 그 기간 동안 생물체가 진화했다는 것은 인정합니다. 그러나 자연 선
택이 유일한 진화의 힘이라는 것은 인정하지 않고 예를 들어 복잡한 생물
체의 출현에 지적 설계자의 개입이 있다고 주장합니다.

오하이오 주 교육 위원회에서는 2002년 올해 안에 새로운 과학 교육 기준
을 채택할 것이라고 합니다. 종교계에서 지적 설계론을 도입하려고 하기
때문에 논쟁이 벌어지고 있습니다. 아래 첨부한 2002년 3월 12일 뉴욕타임
스 기사를 참고하십시오. 창조론자는 지적 설계론을 종교가 아니라 진화론
의 대안적 과학 이론으로 옹호합니다. 이는 과거 창조과학 지지자의 접근
과 다름없습니다.

2. 영국 종교계 학교의 생물 교육 문제 
 
아래 2002년 3월 15일에 작성된 Independent 기사를 참조하십시오. 임매뉴
얼 칼리지 (Emmanuel College)의 진화론 교육 문제로 논쟁이 일고 있습니
다. 이 기술 대학은 기독교 저교회파(Low Church, 미국의 복음주의파) 신
자인 백만장자 바디 경(Sir Peter Vardy)이 스폰서가 돼서 세웠다고 합니
다. 최근에도 창조론 학술회의 같은 것이 열렸다고 합니다.

이 대학 교수들이(city technology college, teacher) 생물학에서 진화론이
아니라 창조론자의 해석을 가르치는 것이 문제가 됐습니다. 영국에서는 진
화론을 가르쳐야 하나 덧붙여 창조론을 가르치는 것은 자유라고 합니다.
이 경우 진화론보다 창조론을 강조한 것이 문제가 된 것 같습니다. 도킨스
(Richard Dawkins) 등 영국의 지도적 과학자들이 종교계 학교의 생물 교
육을 감사(inspection)해야 한다고 주장하고 있습니다. 

토니 블레어 영국 총리는 의회에서 임매뉴얼 칼리지가 창조론을 진흥하고
있다는 것이 "어느 정도 과장됐다"고 말한 것으로 보도됐습니다. 그러자
도킨스는 이 학교가 감사에서 좋은 점수를 받았는데 감사관이 제대로 감사
하지 못했거나 실제 무슨 일이 있는지 나타내지 않았다고 했습니다. 블레
어 총리가 이 보고서만을 알고 있다는 뜻입니다. 
 
이 논쟁에는 턴불 주교(Bishop Michael Turnbull)의 이름도 나타납니다.
성공회와 관련되지 않나 생각합니다. 그는 임매뉴얼 칼리지를 비판하지는
않고 재감사를 지지했다고 합니다. 단, 아마도 도킨스와 같은 철저한 진화
론자가 아닌 중립적인 과학자들로 하여금 이 학교의 생물 교육을 다시 조
사토록 한다는 입장입니다. 

우리 나라의 기독교계가 창조과학을 지지하는 것과 마찬가지로, 종교는 창
조론 편입니다. 턴불 주교도 창조론을 지원하여 "어린아이가 다양한 창조
의 견해를 알도록 하는 것은 가능하다"고 했습니다. 그리고 임매뉴얼 칼리
지의 우수한 교육 성과로 보아 "학생들을 세뇌하는 것이 아니라 사고 방법
을 가르치고 있다는 것을 나타낸다"고 했습니다.

3. 영국 학자들의 견해 

영국 Independent는 임매뉴얼 칼리지 기사와 함께 여러 학자들의 시각을
다루었습니다. 아래 원문을 첨부하였습니다. 많은 사람의 말이 있는데, 소
속이 나와 있는 부분을 간추려 봅니다.

Peter Atkins
Science author and chemistry lecturer at Oxford University
과학은 종교와 양립할 수 없다.

Lewis Wolpert
Professor of biology at University College London
잘 확립된 과학과 직접적으로 배치되는 경우를 제외하고 종교 교육에 반대
하지 않는다.

Joel Edwards
General Director of the Evangelical Alliance
진화론은 하나님에 의한 우주의 창조를 부정하지 못한다.
 
Keith Porteous Wood
Executive director of the National Secular Society
학교는 사실을 가르치는 곳이다. 종교는 가정이나 교회에서 할 일이다.
 
Sir Neil Chalmers
Director of the Natural History Museum in London
창조론은 형편없는(bad) 과학이며 형편없는 종교이다. 둘 다 학교에 자리
가 없다.

Chris Stringer
Head of human origins at the Natural History Museum in London
과학, 특히 생물학을 적절하게 가르치기 위해서는 종교의 간섭이 없어야
한다.

Sir Martin Rees
Astronomer Royal and Cambridge scientist
어린이에게 진화론을 가르쳐야 한다. 그렇지 않다면 이들은 지적으로 결핍
되게 성장한다.

Sir Gabriel Horn
Head of zoology at Cambridge University
과학교육과 하나님의 존재에 대한 믿음은 배치되지 않는다. 하나님의 존재
를 논박할 증거를 제시할 경험적 시험법이 고안되지 못했다.

Zaki Badawi
Principal of the Muslim College
종교계 학교에서 창조론을 참(truth)으로 가르친다고 생각하지 않는다. 대
부분 학교는 그것은 은유(metaphor)로 가르친다.
 
......................................
*오하이오 주 창조론 논란
Ohio debates evolution
Scientists accuse intelligent-design plan of 'trying to put God in the
gaps'
Francis X. Clines, New York Times   
Tuesday, March 12, 2002

Columbus, Ohio -- Proponents of the intelligent-design movement,
which challenges Darwin's primacy in the science classroom, argued
yesterday for equal footing in the state's new teaching curriculum,
while critics warned that speculative theories of some ultimate agent
underpinning evolution were the antithesis of true science.

Hundreds of people sat for more than two hours at a hearing on the
issue by the State Board of Education, listening to abstruse arguments
about the bacterial flagellum and the peppered moth before one of four
clashing scholars finally used the G-word that had attracted the crowd
in the first place.

"The real danger is in trying to put God in the gaps," said Lawrence
Krauss, the physics chairman at Case Western Reserve University.

Krauss argued that while much remained to be discovered about natural
selection, Darwin's theory had only grown in strength through decades
of repeated experimentation and discovery that intelligent design had
not been subjected to.

In contrast to the biblical literalism of creationists, proponents of
intelligent design acknowledge that the Earth is billions of years old
and that organisms evolve over time. But they dispute that natural
selection is the sole force of evolution, arguing that life is so complex
that some sort of intelligent designer, whether called God or something
else, must be involved.

Members of the school board, which will vote this year on a new
curriculum - - the old one having come up for routine review -- asked
for the hearing yesterday despite a strong endorsement of evolution
teaching from the board's curriculum advisory panel.

"There are unanswered questions," Krauss conceded of evolution, even
as he warned that intelligent-design proponents were trying to force
"unanswerable questions" about some theoretical instigator of life onto a
school curriculum properly limited to the rigorous proofs of science.

With equal fervor, Jonathan Wells, senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute,

a Seattle organization dedicated to alternative scientific theories,
contended that there was enough valid challenge to Darwinian evolution
to justify intelligent design's being ordered into the classroom
curriculum -- not as a religious doctrine, he maintained, but as a
matter of "a growing scientific controversy."

"I'm not trying to tell you who's right and who's wrong here," Wells,
a biologist and religious studies scholar, said in denying critics'
accusation that the intelligent-design movement was a new approach,
veiled in scientific trappings, to force theism into the public schools. "Is
the design that we all see real or merely an appearance?" Wells asked.

He argued that teachers should be entitled to plumb this question as a
matter of intellectual fairness for their students, based on what he
described as significant recent criticisms of neo-Darwinian theories
about random mutations and the creation of new organisms.

Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, a biologist at Brown University, told the board
that the state of "scientific controversy" being repeatedly claimed by the
two speakers for intelligent design was nonexistent among most
scientists. Instead, he said, it was "propped up from outside the
scientific community" in a move to pressure legislators and school
officials to overrule the scientific mainstream.

One of the best lessons a teacher can offer students is to "let them
know science has limitations," Miller said. He complained that the
theory advanced by intelligent-design advocates had not been submitted
to peer review and experimentation the way other theories must be
tested to be scientifically accepted.

"They're not a part of science," Krauss added. "What they're really
attacking here is not Darwinism but science."
 
.........................................
*영국 임매뉴얼 칼리지 논쟁
Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
22 March 2002 22:07 GMT
Storm over teaching of creationism at school
Scientists and bishop enter growing debate on whether pupils should be
taught religious alternatives to Darwinism
By Ian Herbert North of England Correspondent
15 March 2002

Can religion and science ever be compatible in education?
John Rentoul: Blair's faith much misunderstood
Paul Vallely: Evolution is God's method of creation

The Bishop of Durham indicated yesterday that a school where
fundamentalist Christian teachers stand accused of undermining the
scientific teaching of biology should subject itself to further examination
by inspectors.

The Rt Rev Michael Turnbull joined the growing debate about
Emmanuel College in Gateshead, Tyne and Wear, where there is
evidence to suggest Christian teachers are emphasising a creationist
interpretation of biology over Darwinian science.

Bishop Turnbull refused to criticise the city technology college ?
designated a beacon school by the Labour government and defended by
Tony Blair in the House of Commons ? but backed calls for
re-inspection, by independent scientists who did not have a Darwinian
axe to grind. "It is possible to put to children a variety of views of
creation," said Bishop Turnbull. "The good academic results of this
school suggest not that pupils are being brainwashed but being taught
to think."

The college  built with £2m of sponsorship from Sir Peter Vardy, the
multimillionaire envangelical Christian entrepreneur who runs the Reg
Vardy car dealerships hosted a creationist conference last weekend. A
series of lectures by its senior staff have included tips for teachers on
techniques that can be used to cast doubt on the theory of evolution.

Professor Richard Dawkins, an Oxford University scientist, joined a
growing group of concerned scientists yesterday, criticising the
"ludicrous falsehoods" being taught and demanding a re-inspection: "I
can only think that the inspectors overlooked or were not shown what
was going on in science teaching."

But the college's glowing Oftsed report in January 2001 rules out
reinspection unless Estelle Morris, the Secretary of State for Education,
intervenes. Ofsted indicated yesterday it had received a letter from
Professor Dawkins but said the one-year period during which
inspectors' work could be challenged had passed without a single
complaint from parents. Only in "extreme circumstances"  such as when
a school is out of control were unscheduled inspections held.

The Ofsted report makes no reference to science teaching but, in a list
of characteristics that "please parents and carers most", it places
"Christian values and beliefs" at the top.

Within the national curriculum, schools must teach evolution but can
teach creationism as well, leaving Emmanuel's teachers free to present
evolution as a "theory" no different from the idea that the world was
made in six days. The school's prospectus states "Christian Truth must
play a vital part in any genuine attempt to educate young people, not
to force belief on people but to ensure proper consideration is given to
the Bible and its claims."

Nigel McQuoid, the headteacher, accused Professor Dawkins, and Liberal
Democrat MP Jenny Tonge, who raised the issue in the Commons, of
attempting to stifle debate. "This....is what happens sometimes when
liberalism takes over The national curriculum insists children are
confronted with the controversial issues of evolution. I am not
interested in blinding children to any one side by showing them the
other.

"I want the science to be examined and for science to speak for itself. I
want those to have a face, to ask themselves 'Does my faith have any
scientic evidence?'. In our science lessons at the moment we give more
weight to evolution because that has been in the national curriculum for
years. But we have assemblies and RE lessons so children are
confronted by biblical stories. This is controversial, I agree, but it is
not damaging for pupils to be involved in controversy."

His position does not entirely tally with the one that emerged in a
lecture to an adult audience given at the college last year by the
vice-principal, Gary Wiecek, who stated: "As Christian teachers it is
essential we are able to counter the anti-creationist position ... It must
be our duty ... to counter these false doctrines with well-founded
insights."

At the school gates, parents appeared convinced by Mr McQuoid
yesterday. "We are not a religious family, we do not go to church,"
said one. "My daughter has come home at times and said that she has
been concerned by the amount of emphasis on religion but that has
been during assemblies and such like, not during lessons. The school's
record on science speaks for itself; the results have been excellent for
years."

....................
*교육에서 종교와 과학은 배치되는가?
Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
22 March 2002 22:12 GMT

Can religion and science ever be compatible in education?
15 March 2002
Storm over teaching of creationism at school

John Rentoul: Blair's faith much misunderstood
Paul Vallely: Evolution is God's method of creation

Peter Atkins
Science author and chemistry lecturer at Oxford University
"Science is incompatible with religion, regardless of what the religious,
desperate to preserve their dwindling patch, may say.

"The worst type of religion such as the junk intellectual deceitful pulp
peddled as creationism  seeks to undermine the one true way we have
of arriving at an understanding of our wonderful world, which is by
publicly shared experimentation allied with thoughtful reflection, and
undermines the ability of people to think honestly, which is what
education should be about.

"Even the more respectable forms of religion, such as institutionalised
Christianity and Islam, propagate manifest nonsense that is totally
incompatible with our scientific under- standing of the world and can
lead to the adoption of attitudes with appalling consequences.

"These religions should be taught only as a part of our cultural history,
for their impact there is undeniable, but they should be presented only
as quaint ways of disguising ignorance, propagating wishful thinking,
and exercising power over the ignorant and weak."

Lewis Wolpert
Professor of biology as applied to medicine at University College
London

"I have no objection to religious education, except when it directly
contradicts well-founded science. For example, it would be totally
unacceptable to teach the Earth was the centre of the universe and the
Sun rotated around us. With creationism it is the same ? all the
scientific evidence supports the most important idea in all of biology,
namely Darwinian evolution. While accounts of miracles may not be in
accord with science, such stories do not try to compete with scientific
explanations and they are not taught in the science curriculum; they are
part of religious studies.

"The biblical view of creation and the existence of God is, as Hume
said, based on faith and there is no attempt to put it alongside science
as an explanation of events ? it is part of religious faith."

Joel Edwards
General Director of the Evangelical Alliance

"This should not be seen as a gladiatorial confrontation be-tween
science and the Christian faith. Evolutionary theory does not 'disprove'
the creation of the cosmos by God.

"We would support Emmanuel City Technology College's right to allow
its science teachers to discuss theistic and Biblical accounts of origins
with their pupils, in combination with Darwinian and other evolutionary
models."

Keith Porteous Wood
Executive director of the National Secular Society:

"Schools should be about the teaching of facts. Science lessons should
be for teaching science, not creationism, which has as much scientific
validity as claiming the sun revolves around a flat earth. Schools
should teach about religion, in art, literature and history, and about
comparative religion. But myths and religious devotions should be a
private matter for the home or place of worship.

"The Department for Education should proscribe the teaching of
creationism as science immediately as well as the teaching of religion
as fact in all publicly funded schools."

Sir Neil Chalmers
Director of the Natural History Museum in London

"Creationism is bad science and bad religion. Neither has a place in our
schools.

"Good science reveals the evolution of life on Earth over billions of
years. Good religion will come to terms with, rather than reject, the
facts about our evolutionary past."

Chris Stringer
Head of human origins at the Natural History Museum in London

"I believe that the proper teaching of science, and particularly biology,
cannot take place under religious interference. These subjects should be
kept quite separate.

"In its religious instruction classes, does the school in question try to
give equal time and balanced treatment to all the different religions
with their distinctive creation myths?"

Sir Martin Rees
Astronomer Royal and Cambridge scientist

"It's sad the dialogue between science and religion seems, in this recent
instance, to have sunk to the strident and naive level that I'd hoped
was confined to Kansas and the American deep south. The theory of
evolution ? and, indeed, current concepts of our terrestrial and cosmic
environment ? should figure in everyone's education, along with world
history.

"Children would grow up intellectually deprived if they weren't exposed
to Darwinism. As Darwin himself said: 'There is grandeur in this view
of life.'

"There is overwhelming scientific evidence against simplistic
creationism. Even the Catholic Church now officially endorses
Darwinism. Among the scientists I know, there are firm adherents of
many faiths, as well as many agnostics and some atheists. Science
need not conflict with religious attitudes and practices, which are also a
proper part of education."

Sir Gabriel Horn
Head of zoology at Cambridge University

"I see nothing incompatible between the teaching of science in schools
and belief in the existence of God. Scientists seek to understand the
universe ... through observation and experiment. Science is an empirical
discipline. So far as I am aware, no empirical tests have been devised
that provide compelling evidence to refute the existence of a God."

Zaki Badawi
Principal of the Muslim College

"Of course they are incompatible. The only way to reconcile it is to
consider one as metaphor, and the only version that can be considered
meta-phor is found inreligious books.

"Teaching religion as true would bring students into a lot of trouble
and would confuse them, because the entire education system is based
on the scientific assumptions.

"I don't think the faith schools are teaching creation as truth. Most
schools are teaching it as metaphor."
.............................