I think universities are guilty of something. They are guilty of producing unintelligent, brainwashed students. They have developed a very simple and effective method for doing this: remove any controversial subject from the curriculum and only teach one side of an issue. Specifically this practice is found in science, in which students are taught Big Bang cosmology and Darwinian Evolution in total and absolute seclusion.
Any competing view, such as Intelligent Design, has been expelled from the classroom, so to speak.
Now, before I go any further, allow me to lay out a disclaimer: I am not trying to say Intelligent Design is the truth or that the Big Bang is wrong. I am merely arguing that opposing viewpoints should be presented in the classroom. It is simply a matter of academic integrity and curiosity.
With that said, I think the structure of our current curriculum is wrong. Instead of submitting to views forced on them in solitude, students should be given the chance to learn in competitive and diverse environments. Only here can they find the necessary tools to make informed decisions. This is why schools teach differing viewpoints in philosophy and literature classes; they understand discord produces discovery.
It is academically dishonest to do otherwise. For example, what if every philosophy professor taught relativism was the only credible view of truth? Or if every political science course concluded that conservatism was correct and liberalism wrong?
That would certainly be shameful! Even if, hypothetically speaking, of course, conservatism was correct and liberalism wrong, students should be the ones to decide, not university administrators and professors. So why is science not held in the same regard? Some scientists would argue science is different because it is absolute; there is no room for opposing theories. Put simply, they say scientific truths are obvious. However, the problem with this assertion is that while yes, many scientific findings are axiomatic, the science behind the cosmos is not. It is strictly theoretical. Big Bang cosmology and evolution both have unanswered questions.
This fact disqualifies them from the “obvious” category of science.
For example, one question which troubles scientists is how something can come from nothing. This has had them in a mess for quite a while. To date, scientists unanimously agree on the uncertainty of their explanations for the origin of matter. Similarly, scientists deal with several well-cultivated criticisms of evolution. Most notably, they have to answer serious inquiries into the legitimacy of the transitional fossil record. Now, whether these criticisms are valid is not the question. What is important to note is there are criticisms, which further points to the fact that these views are not infallible. Yet, despite the problems, these teachings are almost completely untouchable within institutions. Anyone caught probing into the evidences is discouraged. You don’t believe me? Try telling your professor evolution is wrong.
But seriously, science is rigged.
It has a prior commitment to reject anything which challenges its authority. In principle, this is a bad idea. History has shown that whenever anyone or anything rests in such an unchallenged light, error abounds. It’s not too late for schools. They can still save the students they influence. All they need to do is recognize the beauty intellectual dissent brings and protect it with vigor.
Ben Hester is a freshman
majoring in biochemistry. He
can be contacted at opinion@
reflector.msstate.edu.