Intelligent-design proponents win the day in Kansas, but will this mean good fortune for their mission to remake American science education? From the Associated Press:
"New science standards for Kansas' public schools, criticized for promoting creationism while treating evolution as a flawed theory, won approval today from the State Board of Education."The board's 6-4 vote, expected for months, was a victory for intelligent design advocates who helped draft the standards and argued the changes would make teaching about evolution more balanced and expose students to legitimate scientific questions about the theory.
"But the board's vote is likely to heap fresh national criticism on Kansas and cause many scientists to see the state as backward. Current state standards treat evolution as well-established — a view also held by national science groups."
Kansas is the fifth state to adopt science-education standards that treat the theory of evolution skeptically, a move that carries political risks. On the very day the Kansas State Board of Education passed its new standards, Pennsylvania school-board members were voted out of office, reportedly in response to their approval of a public statement telling students that some find evolution contradictory to other theories. In addition, Pennsylvania is involved in a court case challenging its intelligent-design/evolution standards.
I don't see a problem with including the theory of intelligent design into school curricula. Critics say it brings religion into the classroom. but consider what the theory posits. Very simply, it floats the idea that some designer — an intelligent one — played a role in the evolution of life on earth and in the origin of life itself. There is no god or religion mentioned here. As presented, the intelligent designer could be an alien.
The problem comes from those who push evolution only and don't want anything taught that might expose flaws in that theory. Those opposing the inclusion of intelligent design in US science texts must feel insecure about their beliefs. How else to explain their refusal to welcome alternate theories? Have they so little confidence in their theory's ability to withstand scrutiny?
Article comments
1 - Maurice
Well thought out and well presented. There is no reason to present evolution as fact. As a Scientist/Engineer I am confounded daily by things that I presumed as fact.
2 - Bryan McKay
Two points:
1. "Evolution teaches that life started with simple forms that developed into complex ones. Obviously, that is impossible."
That is a startlingly ignorant statement. I'm not sure how familiar you think you are with evolutionary theory, but clearly you have no conception of the science at work. The examples you provide have nothing to do with the issue of evolution. You managed to cleverly identify the reproductive process and nothing more.
2. "How else to explain their refusal to welcome alternate theories?"
A theory is not just pulled out of someone's ass somewhere. A theory is based on scientific, empirical evidence and data. It may not be proven, but it is supported by observable data. The existence of an intelligent designer is not supported by any sort of empirical evidence. This is what we call an unfounded belief. Intelligent design cannot be called a theory in the scientific sense and thusly has no place in a science class.
---
I am not arguing that intelligent design can't be right, but nevertheless, it is not an actual scientific theory and has no place being taught in a science class. There really should be no debate on this issue whatsoever. The possibility of intelligent design is open to discussion or thought, but it is not science and doesn't belong there.
3 - gonzo marx
aaAAAAAaaaAAAaaarRRRRRrrRRggGGGGgghHHhhhh!!!!
ok...one more time for those in the cheap seats in the back...
ID is NOT science..it is an unfounded hypothesis, NOT a Theory
there has yet to be ONE single experiment even suggested to begin proving or disproving ID...i'm not certain it is even possible to create such an experiment for data collection purposes enabling empirical results
so...ID = Metaphysics
Evolution = Science
keep each in their proper classroom and yer fine
the problem here appears to revolve around the fact that some folks don't see the difference in catagorization as well as not seeming to understand that in even 9th grade science classes the Definition of scientific Theory is explained, and examples are given of how the process works to refine and even reject such at times (look up the "phlogiston chemists" for example)
so, whenever you begin thinking of this Debate....stop and define your terms...look them up if you have to
because the ID proponents sure as hell haven't..or they are deliberately fucking up the epistemology and trying to change the very definition of science
Excelsior!
4 - Paul J. Marasa
The problem with teaching challenges to mainstream biology in high school classrooms is a simple pedagogical one: high school students - and, one might guess, as unfortunate as it might be, some high school teachers; but that argument needs to wait for another day - are generally not familiar enough with the standard explanations of most scientific theories, whether in physics, chemistry, or biology to carefully consider alternate ones, let alone explicate lucid challenges to those theories. (I'm excluding the geniuses, but for the sake of my argument we can leave them out of the picture.)
As with any discipline, one must be an expert in the fundamentals before one can question them. A high school biology class is simply not the place for the sophisticaed critical thinking necessary to successfully challenge such a widely accepted theory as evolution.
In terms of your specific comments, allow me to quote and comment:
"I don't see a problem with including the theory of intelligent design into school curricula. Critics say it brings religion into the classroom. but consider what the theory posits. Very simply, it floats the idea that some designer -- an intelligent one -- played a role in the evolution of life on earth and in the origin of life itself."
I'm not sure we can trust this "floating idea." Its major assumption is that a designer exists, and you can't do intelligent design without that "first principle." Evolutionary theory, always going through its own "evolving" state, is based on a number of observations, supported by other reliable theories in geology, physics, chemistry, and so on--and is wise enough not to guess about a designer.
You also write:
"There is no god or religion mentioned here. As presented, the intelligent designer could be an alien."
Well, Minister, let's be honest. No one who has an active desire to institutionalize intelligent design into the high school curriculum would, if pressed, allow a discussion of Alien Overlords into the discussion. It is actually an idea one can see in Star Trek and The X-Files, and of course there's always Eric von Daniken's Chariots of the Gods?, but I don't think these would ever become become required in an intelligent design-supportive curriculum.
I begin to sense some defensiveness when you write,
"The problem comes from those who push evolution only and don't want anything taught that might expose flaws in that theory."
Again, I think common sense would dictate that to ask high schoolers to understand a complex scientific theory well enough to "expose flaws" in it is asking a bit too much.
Immediately after, you fall into an oversimplification, one that reveals the essentially circular nature of your reasoning. You write:
"Those opposing the inclusion of intelligent design in US science texts must feel insecure about their beliefs. How else to explain their refusal to welcome alternate theories? Have they so little confidence in their theory's ability to withstand scrutiny?"
Hmm. So those who oppose you are weak-minded - hence the insecurity - as well as unsure - hence the lack of confidence. Is this line of "reasoning" necessary to support your position. Anyone who's seen them at work knows that scientists scrutinize their own and each others' work every day with a thoroughness bred from the skepticism necessary to do scientific research. Let's not erect straw men we can easily knock down, but instead do the hard work of thinking through our problems slowly and carefully, without easy assumptions about our opponents' mental state.
Finally, you assert that you see a "major flaw":
"Evolution teaches that life started with simple forms that developed into complex ones. Obviously, that is impossible. If life began that way, then the chicken egg would not need to go through a chicken in order to hatch. Human babies would not need two complex humans to come together and plant, fertilize and carry the egg. Nor would we need science to do these things artificially in a laboratory."
I must admit you lose me. Although the movement from simple to complex forms may indeed be complex--OK, may for all I know one day be seen as "impossible,"--I don't see how that movement is "obviously "impossible." Better men and women than the two of us will have to work long and hard to make this impossibility "obvious." And so your chicken-and-egg example seems obscure, to say the least.
I want to thank you for providing a thought-provoking piece. And I trust we can do both: think as well as provoke.
By the way, this seems to be a problem of a distinct subcategory of believers. I was raised a Christian by parents who accepted evolution. If God wanted to use evolution to get us here, so be it. After all, as of now I only see through a glass darkly. In the meantime, thank God for fossils!)
5 - Ragnar
Bryan's points are well made. A scientific theory has to be predictive and falsifiable- that is, you have to be able to use it to make predictions about real life, and it has to be possible to prove it to be incorrect through observation. If its predictions turn out to be wrong, it needs to be modified or chucked out.
Evolution meets this standard. You can observe it in action (for example, in the lifecycles of quickly-breeding insects), and you can use it to make predictions.
Virtually all biologists the world over use Evolution as one of the fundamental axioms for biology. It's been tested over and over, and is still being tested today. And it continues to hold up.
Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. It's an idea, but it can't be observed in the real world (there is no evidence to support it), and you can't use it to make predictions.
The folks who invented the term are Creationists who simply invented ID as a code word to make their idea less overtly religious. Early drafts of "Of Pandas and People" used the word Creationism instead, and it was simply swapped out. This was shown in the Pennsylvania court case. Still, the idea is fundamentally religious. It's not testable, not provable, and exists only to try to case doubt on one of the bedrock theories of modern science for evangelical purposes.
More good basics on evolution
6 - Matthew T. Sussman
All this time people have lobbied for ID, they could have used that time to breed and teach their children the ways of our omniscient designer " the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
RAmen.
(In all honesty this is one of those no-skin-off-my-back issues that I usually watch the arguments volley back and forth in case nothing good is on TV.)
7 - Bryan McKay
So Matt, if you choose to have children someday, you're not at all concerned about what they're going to be taught in school science classes? Hell, even if you don't have kids of your own, don't you have some desire for the next generation of adults to recieve a well-informed education? No matter what side of the debate one chooses to fall on, it still seems better than not caring at all. Although I suppose that it is pretty hip and cool to take a flippant or ironic stance towards an issue of actual imporantance.
8 - Bennett
It's telling that the folks who push ID are religious, but not scientists. Those that oppose it may be religious, but they also understand that there is a difference between science and unprovable beliefs.
Let's cut to the meat of the matter. Be honest, kansasman, admit the obvious. It is all about Christian Creationism. You want to expose as many kids as possible to Christian dogma, whatever the cost.
To hell with rational thinking, screw science, and forget about being part of a secular society.
PUSH your religion down the throats of the entire world!
Feh!
9 - Matthew T. Sussman
Bryan, I want my kids to learn three things in school:
1. How to work well with others
2. Making it to class on time
3. Not taking shit from other kids
Everything else will fall into the place once they get a good paying job.
Evolution? Intelligent design? We're splitting hairs here over one detail that won't be figured out until the Spaghetti Monster comes down from the heavens and tells us.
10 - gonzo marx
waitaminnit...Suss breeding!!!
fuck no!!
just stop spreading that type of obscenity right now....geez...the sheer thought just killed a gerbil...
so please...before you type...think of the gerbils
Excelsior!
11 - Duane
Maurice says: There is no reason to present evolution as fact. As a Scientist/Engineer ...
I don't want to sound overly nasty, Maurice. But what the hell? You suggest that you've had scientific training, yet you confuse the concepts of Theory and Fact. Does your boss know about this?
Fact: The sky looks blue today, and the Sun is out.
Theory: The sky is blue because of the preferential short-wavelength Rayleigh scattering of the continuum Solar spectrum off of particles in the Earth's atmosphere. The scattered spectrum is convolved with the response function of the human eye, rendering the sky as blue.
12 - Matthew T. Sussman
I haven't killed any gerbils ... THAT I KNOW OF.
13 - Sean
Ragnar put it better than I could, but let me add the following: Do ID adherents believe that there is some set of data, some observation that can be made, that would prove intelligent design is wrong? If not, than ID is not science.
Science tries to explain the natural world through observation and data collection. ID posits a "creator" which is by definition supernatural. Ergo, ID is not science
14 - Orac
I can't believe you posted this. Intelligent design is not science. It is not a scientific theory (hint: by "theory," scientists mean a heck of a lot more than the colloquial meaning of the word "theory" that most people mean, namely "just a guess"). It is not even a testable scientific hypothesis. Therefore it should not be taught in science class, any more than science should be taught in religion class. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of a "designer" (a.k.a. God, the efforts of ID proponents to deny it notwithstanding). To science, whether or not a "designer" exists is irrelevant, because it does not produce any useful, testable hypotheses or advance our understanding.
Oh, and the "major flaw" mentioned has to be one of the more ridiculous "intelligent design" canards that I've ever heard. The logic is mind-numbingly fallacious He doesn't bother to explain how evolutionary theory of common descent would make it "impossible" for a chicken egg to need to go through a chicken in order to hatch or why male and female gametes are needed to produce a human. Evolution happens over many, many generations, not in one.
In fact, I may have to blog about this one. It's one of the stranger creationist canards I've ever heard.
15 - Scott Butki
ID is just creationism spelled out in a new way. The fact it's gaining acceptance scares the bejesus out of me,
16 - Silas Kain
The strongest argument against Intelligent Design comes directly out of the intelligent vote cast yesterday in Kansas.
17 - andy marsh
When I saw the title of this post I knew I'd see a Gonzo comment somewhere on here. I believe we've beat the hell out of this issue more than one time here at BC.
Bryan, you ask Matt if he wants his children to be taught right...I know Gonzo...sorry...the way I see it is...let my public high school teach my daughters the science....I'll take care of the ID deal. 11 years of catholic school makes me qualified to teach the catholic version of it anyway. If they want more, they can find some elective in college.
18 - Alethinos
People who support ID are proof positive that evolution just doesn't work... Fast enough in weeding out painfully ignorant, narrow-minded, holier-than-thou types in the general population.
Alethinos
19 - Bennett
There's a well written piece on this by the editor in chief of Scientific American.
Worth checking out.