Intelligent Design
I have been greatly annoyed by a recent case concerning a civil suit against the State Universities in California. The matter came about due to the fact that several students applying to the Universities attended science classes in religious schools which insisted on using specific textbooks published by religious authorities, and the admissions board had deemed that the textbooks did not posses enough academic merit for the Universities to credit these students with the science classes they attended, thus affecting their chances for entry into University. These students promptly sued the state on the grounds that they were being discriminated against on the basis of religious faith.
This issue in itself is part of the wider debate within America about the calls for the teaching of the theory of 'intelligent design' as a coherent alternative to the theory of evolution itself. This has come admist a reaction from the religious right in America against the mainly liberal and secular school boards. These people claim that the theory of evolution itself is "unproven" and that there is a bias in school curriculum emphasizing this over other "theories" regarding the origins of mankind. They further claim that students are given the mistaken impression that evolutionary theory is the only correct theory available to explain the development of life on earth.
Instead, they claim that evolution must be taught alongside other theories, and that this diversity of viewpoint can only be beneficial compared to the myopic view that students currently have. Chief among these and championed by many on the religious right is the notion of intelligent design. This theory basically states that many of the features inherent in animals and the universe contain characteristics that must be caused by and result from an intelligent cause or agent. This is directly opposed to the idea of evolution and natural selection. According to supporters of intelligent design, their theory is no more or no less valid than the theory of evolution in terms of answering the question of the origin of life and thus should be given equal weight and credit and more importantly should also be taught in school biology classes alongside evolutionary theory, particularly given that the origins of life is such a complex question that evolution itself was not able to prove conclusive as a single cause.
The movement has been gaining momentum since the late 1990s, particularly with the election of President George W Bush, who has openly championed intelligent design over evolution. In recent years school boards in Alabama, Texas, New Mexico, Nebraska and Illionis have moved towards dropping the theory of evolution from the school curriculum. The school board of Kansas actually succeeded in doing so by a vote of 6 to 4 in 1999. Over 20 states have a legal challenge against evolutionary theory is some form or another.
However, one major question that they seem to conveniently overlook is where, if any place at all, should the teaching of intelligent design be placed within education. The overriding question, shunted aside by the religious right, is whether intelligent design is scientific at all. The National Academy of Sciences is very clear on this matter. They said in a statement that intelligent design is "not scientific because such theories cannot be tested by evidence, nor do they generate any predictions or propose new hypothesis of their own". A very clear distinction must be made between what is scientific and what is not, something that the religious right refuses to acknowledge. Science has a very specific methodology which differentiates what is scientific from what is not scientific. This includes elements such as hypothesis being empirically testable, supported or based upon multiple observations, being internally and externally consistent and other such characteristics. Does intelligent design really meet this criteria?
In the case of the school textbooks used by religious schools, they almost certainly do not. The introduction to the textbooks state that the content was written to be consistent with the word of God and the teachings of the Christian faith. More explicitly it said that "the people who prepared this book have consistently tried to put the word of God first and science second". Therein lies the crux of the matter - because like it or not, the people supporting intelligent design have a primarily religious agenda, and the entire theory in stems from this agenda to begin with, no matter how hard they try and pretend otherwise and disguise the theory as scientific. Intelligent design is not fundamentally based on empirically testable or observable hypothesis but on religious faith, pure and simple. If it were to be taught at all, it belongs in a religious education class and not a science one.
This issue in itself is part of the wider debate within America about the calls for the teaching of the theory of 'intelligent design' as a coherent alternative to the theory of evolution itself. This has come admist a reaction from the religious right in America against the mainly liberal and secular school boards. These people claim that the theory of evolution itself is "unproven" and that there is a bias in school curriculum emphasizing this over other "theories" regarding the origins of mankind. They further claim that students are given the mistaken impression that evolutionary theory is the only correct theory available to explain the development of life on earth.
Instead, they claim that evolution must be taught alongside other theories, and that this diversity of viewpoint can only be beneficial compared to the myopic view that students currently have. Chief among these and championed by many on the religious right is the notion of intelligent design. This theory basically states that many of the features inherent in animals and the universe contain characteristics that must be caused by and result from an intelligent cause or agent. This is directly opposed to the idea of evolution and natural selection. According to supporters of intelligent design, their theory is no more or no less valid than the theory of evolution in terms of answering the question of the origin of life and thus should be given equal weight and credit and more importantly should also be taught in school biology classes alongside evolutionary theory, particularly given that the origins of life is such a complex question that evolution itself was not able to prove conclusive as a single cause.
The movement has been gaining momentum since the late 1990s, particularly with the election of President George W Bush, who has openly championed intelligent design over evolution. In recent years school boards in Alabama, Texas, New Mexico, Nebraska and Illionis have moved towards dropping the theory of evolution from the school curriculum. The school board of Kansas actually succeeded in doing so by a vote of 6 to 4 in 1999. Over 20 states have a legal challenge against evolutionary theory is some form or another.
However, one major question that they seem to conveniently overlook is where, if any place at all, should the teaching of intelligent design be placed within education. The overriding question, shunted aside by the religious right, is whether intelligent design is scientific at all. The National Academy of Sciences is very clear on this matter. They said in a statement that intelligent design is "not scientific because such theories cannot be tested by evidence, nor do they generate any predictions or propose new hypothesis of their own". A very clear distinction must be made between what is scientific and what is not, something that the religious right refuses to acknowledge. Science has a very specific methodology which differentiates what is scientific from what is not scientific. This includes elements such as hypothesis being empirically testable, supported or based upon multiple observations, being internally and externally consistent and other such characteristics. Does intelligent design really meet this criteria?
In the case of the school textbooks used by religious schools, they almost certainly do not. The introduction to the textbooks state that the content was written to be consistent with the word of God and the teachings of the Christian faith. More explicitly it said that "the people who prepared this book have consistently tried to put the word of God first and science second". Therein lies the crux of the matter - because like it or not, the people supporting intelligent design have a primarily religious agenda, and the entire theory in stems from this agenda to begin with, no matter how hard they try and pretend otherwise and disguise the theory as scientific. Intelligent design is not fundamentally based on empirically testable or observable hypothesis but on religious faith, pure and simple. If it were to be taught at all, it belongs in a religious education class and not a science one.
posted by Caleb Liu | 6:28 PM
1 Comments:
I think the "Intelligent design" people might object to it being included in a religion course, since they claim the designer might just be an alien, and thus not a god. To avoid offending these people, I think putting intelligent design into social studies class would be the easiest. All religion, and forms of atheism, might reasonably be taught there, too. Or put religions and intelligent design into psychology, if that's taught in high school.
By the way, I've polled my students over the years -- the place where kids get exposed to human evolution is usually in history courses. So odd.
Post a Comment
<< Home