Darwin vs. God, Friedman vs. Keynes

First of all, I'd like to say that I got my 2,000th visitor earlier today...or at least the 2,000th since I've been keeping track. So that's pretty cool. Anyway.

I don't claim to know enough about either evolution or creation to know which one is right, but I was reading recently that more and more scientists were starting to question Darwin's theory. Which I suppose is perfectly reasonable, as that is what scientists are supposed to do. Life on this planet, or any other for that matter, is far too complex to simply be explained by random mutation and natural selection.

The human eye is far too complex and different from a maple leaf, in my opinion, for them both to have evolved from the same single cell. Likewise, reproductive habits (like natural selection) don't seem to account for the various species of animals, or the various species of asexual organisms. While the theory has merit, it also has some pretty major short comings.

However, the same is true for creationism. As many arguments there are for it (intelligent design, etc.), aside from God himself floating down to Earth and revealing himself, there's no way to prove his existence (or lack thereof).

Hmm...so what we have is two theories, both with valid points, but neither that is provable. Hence the 'theory', I suppose. By definition, theories cannot be empirically proven as fact. They also can’t explain, they can only predict, but that’s pretty irrelevant in this.

This problem is strikingly similar to a problem in another scholastic subject -- economics. (Sorry to keep going back to economics, but I just finished a big piece on tax reform for work and I’ve been reading Freakonomics, so I’ve got economics on the brain.) For example, the differing theories between Milton Friedman and John Maynard Keynes. It’d be easier to say Karl Marx, but screw Karl Marx.

Milton Friedman is a hardcore free-market advocate. He literally wrote the book on capitalism, and believes that the best thing a government can do to help an economy is nothing at all. Markets will regulate themselves, and innovation will lead to better products at lower prices. Makes sense, right?

But then there’s John Maynard Keynes, who’s all about government spending, even when governments don’t have the money. He believes the best thing a government can do to help the economy is to pour money into it. That also makes sense, doesn’t it?

So which one of these theories is right? Well, neither really. At least absolutely. Both theories have their merit, but neither are perfect. That’s the problem with theories...they sound great on paper, but implementing them in reality is essentially and practically impossible.

With this in mind, what do most economic professors do? Choose one in favor of the other? Teach one as fact and totally disregard the other? Not any economics class I’ve ever taken. No, they teach both as they are...theories. Unprovable, but making reasonable points.

I realize this becomes infinitely more complicated when a theory calls into question literally billions of people’s faith, but it is what it is. It is not the business of the public school system to choose sides, for or against, theories that involve religious beliefs. This includes not teaching theories that might suggest the existence of God, or some other higher being.

There seems to be this undercurrent in the academic world that the idea of God, and especially the belief therein, is somehow boorish and unsophisticated. However, due to the fact that the theory of intelligent design is every bit as much of a theory as evolution, it should be given just as much focus and credence as evolution. Personally, I think this is born out of the scientific nature to not take the easy answer. Scientists are generally skeptics, and as such it’s quite difficult to accept the simple explanation of ‘God did it.’ They have a tendency to look deeper, as well they should. But when they can’t explain things themselves, they shouldn’t automatically discount the presence of a higher being. But that’s an entirely different blog post.

Ideally, both theories would be taught and given equal time, just as any other theory. Students should be taught to understand the differences in the theories, as well as their individual merits. But they should also be taught which one is correct. This is actually easier than it might seem, because at the end of the day, we simply don’t know.