The Intelligence of Intelligent Design
From today's New York Times:
Following is a statement on evolution and an alternative that a school administrator in Dover, Pa., is expected to read to high school biology students this week:
The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence.
A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book "Of Pandas and People" is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origin of life to individual students and their families.
As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.
Dover, Pa, is the focus of a lawsuit involving a group of parents, represented by the ACLU, and a single school board member elected in the Great Bush Mandate last November. This scene is being played out on different levels in school districts around the country.
Pandas are used as an example that disproves the theory of evolution because pandas supposedly have an opposable thumb (they don't).
A passage from "Of Pandas and People":
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact - fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. Some scientists have arrived at this view since fossil forms first appear in the rock record with their distinctive features intact, rather than gradually developing.
The backers of teaching Intelligent Design go to great lengths to support their claims and promote their goals, which is to get religion's foot in the classroom door. They appear at school board meetings and try to sound open-minded and reasonable. Who could argue against open discussion and free examination of all competing theories in an educational setting?
Design theory is already well established in scientific inquiry. For example, in a fire investigation one examines the evidence at the scene to determine whether the fire was a result of natural causes or whether arson (a designed event) was involved. In archaeology one examines an object made of rock (an artifact) to determine whether it was shaped by natural forces or whether it was shaped by man to be a tool. In forensic science one investigates the crime scene to determine if the death was by natural causes or whether it was murder (a designed act). In the government funded SETI program we analyze patterns of radio and light waves in an effort to detect alien intelligence.
We believe origins science should be conducted in a similar manner. One examines the scientific evidence to determine if a design inference is warranted. The phenomenon must be studied without bias or assumption in a search for an explanation that is dictated by the evidence rather than a preconceived notion of the outcome. This is the method that will lead us closer to the best scientific explanation for our origins. Origins science demands objectivity.
And here's some more:
Although evidence of design is consistent with theistic belief, it may also be said that evolutionary theory is consistent with non-belief (or atheism or agnosticism). The evidence in both cases is not religious although it impacts religion. The goal of objective origins science is to see that the relevant evidence is shown without religious, philosophic or naturalistic bias or assumption. It is then up to the students, parents and others to decide what to ultimately believe about where the evidence leads.
You won't get very far in researcing Intelligent Design before you are led straight to its evolutionary progenitor, Creation Science, a name that was tarnished when the Supreme Court ruled against teaching it in 1981.
On the Creation Science home page, we find:
The first chapter of the Bible, Genesis, tells of the major creation events. Many people, even Christians, regard the creation account as something other than actual history - a nice story that conveys some truths but which is not to be taken literally. The main reason for this view is the incorrect assumption that "science" has proved that it was really evolution that got us here. But why not start with the view that Genesis is true?, especially if you already believe that an all-powerful creator exists or could exist. There is no fundamental conflict between what is said in Genesis and what we absolutely know to be scientifically true
And later:
The "geologic column", which is cited as physical evidence of evolution occurring in the past, is better explained as the result of a devastating global flood which happened about 5,000 years ago, as described in the Bible. Even evolutionists acknowledge that the fossil record is one of "fully-formed abrupt appearance" and "stasis" (that is, no change over time) ... There is no reason not to believe that God created our universe, earth, plants, animals, and people just as described in the book of Genesis!
Who are these people who disagree with standard high school science curricula? And what do they want with our public schools?
Scientists who call themselves "creation scientists" are professionals, typically with advanced degrees from major universities, who are generally involved in the same types of work as the average scientist. The difference is that creation scientists have a "world-view", or "model" for their science which is based on the belief that an intelligent designer ("God") exists who created our universe and the natural things in it. The creation events were one-time events and are not taking place today. A large subset of creation scientists could be called "Biblical creationists", who take the first eleven chapters of the Bible to be real history, including the creation of all things in six 24-hour days, the existence of Adam and Eve as the first man and woman, the unnatural introduction of "death" into the perfect creation because of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, and the occurence of a world-wide flood (Noah's flood) which destroyed most life and greatly affected the processes operating on the earth. Most creation scientists believe that the earth is "young" (on the order of ten thousand years), but this is a secondary issue. Biblical creationists believe that the Bible and true science are in full harmony with each other - there is no need to "check your brain at the door" when entering a church.
Enough of Intelleigent Design.
As long as they don't teach it as accepted fact, I really have no objection to bringing it up in the context of alternative theories. Let's agree that the Theory of Evolution is just a theory, and as such is no more valuable to our understanding of the universe than any other theory.
But why stop at Intelligent Design? The Hindu cosmology is considerably older than that of the Bible, and its account of the age of the universe is much more in line with the Darwinists. Don't the cosmological traditions of Navajo and Mayan cultures deserve equal time? And what of Islam? Checking out the Islam Guide we can find that in the Quran, God tells Muhammad about the stages of human embrionic development -
We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed substance)...
If Intelligent Design belongs in the school, shouldn't this be included as well?
6:26:40 PM 
|
|
