|
|
|
« The Enemy of the Good | Main January 19, 2005Darwin v. Intelligent DesignThe defenders of pointing out the deceptive truth (a fascinating term) that evolution is a theory rather than a fact will soldier on in trying to keep a sticker noting that evolution is 'only a theory' in their science textbooks. Meanwhile, students in a Pennsylvania science class are being taught intelligent design alongside evolution, reminding those of us who tend towards the secular that religious faith remains quite strong in America. While I don't have any problem with strong religious faith, I have numerous problems with these cases. Intelligent design has no more place in a science classroom than evolution does in a church. Intelligent design may be the explanation for how the world developed as it did: I certainly can't prove that it isn't. And that's precisely what makes it inappropriate for a science classroom. Science is a rigid discipline. It is a method for learning about the world that depends on open communication and the ability for others to replicate results. A scientific theory is never provable, but it is disprovable. Saying that something is 'just' a theory is to completely misconstrue science: a theory has already demonstrated predictive ability. Intelligence design cannot pass these tests. As a thought experiment, could you disprove evolution? What if you found fossil evidence of creatures appearing from massively less complex organisms? If you could find a human fossil that dated back to a time when the only life on Earth was single-celled organisms, that would seriously undermine the theory. Find enough such fossils and it would be difficult to support evolution. I'm not holding my breath waiting for such discoveries, but it is certainly theoretically possible to disprove evolution. Try the same thing with intelligent design. The very nature of the hypothesis renders it unscientific. There is no way to disprove intelligent design, because no matter what evidence comes to light, the proponents of intelligent design can simply argue that the intelligent designer made things happen that way. As I said above, that may be so, but an idea that can't be disproven is a question for philosophers, not scientists. As such, it has no place in a science classroom. I'm not certain why people are so adamant about teaching ID or creationism in schools. When 61% of Americans believe the creation story in Genesis is the literal truth, it seems that the creationists already have the upper hand. If you want to teach your children that God created the world in seven days, you're free to do so. But such teachings have no business in government schools. Posted at January 19, 2005 12:23 PM
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsScience is not a rigid discipline. Science proved, for decades, that blacks should be slaves because they have smaller skulls (they don't) or longer forearms (they don't). Science is done by fallible people, and the scientific method does not erase human fallibility. Worse yet, science is easily manipulated by advocates. For example, advocates of eugenics used science to sterilize and murder thousands of people in Western Europe less than a hundred years ago. Saying the theory of evolution should be taught because science is rigid (implying it is somehow infallibe or less fallible than other disciplines) is absolutely wrong. It should be taught because it is science- and biology is a science. Posted by: Harkonnendog at January 19, 2005 01:32 PM You misunderstand what I mean by a rigid discipline. Rigor does not ensure accuracy. But it does mean that when people make claims, there is a way to evaluate those claims against reality. You claim that science proved things that weren't so. To that I can only say that science clearly didn't prove them if they weren't so. Posted by: Andrew at January 19, 2005 01:40 PM Great post. This is my first time here. This is a fascinating debate because both sides feel so strongly about their belief. This was a very balanced post that wasn't full of insults to the other side. This line absolutely scares the bejesus out of me: "When 61% of Americans believe the creation story in Genesis is the literal truth" I've actually heard that the number is higher. Posted by: Josh at January 19, 2005 01:48 PM Hold on, evolution and ID are not necessarily mutually exclusive and most popular books on ID were written by agnostics. Maybe there isn't much to Intelligent Design. I suspect right now it is more of a philosophical excercise than anything else. But the attacks on ID right now are poor attempts at tagging it with Christian fundamentalism. That is absurd. Christian fundamentalism and ID are not compatible. Posted by: Brian at January 19, 2005 02:10 PM Brian, I'm not saying ID isn't necessarily correct. Just that it's not scientific and doesn't belong in a science class. Posted by: Andrew at January 19, 2005 02:17 PM Evolution as a theory... I think most people that want ID taught would be happy if evolution really was taught as a theory (in no uncertain terms) and if competeing theories were discussed. Simply acknowledging the fact that evolution is not fact, and then pointing out alternatives (even talk for a few minutes about the discreditied ones). Sadly today, too many schools treat any questioning of evolution as heresy. Posted by: SCSIwuzzy at January 19, 2005 02:51 PM Post a comment |
