Besides intelligent design's upsetting an intellectual framework with which many scientists are comfortable, opponents object to the theory on the basis that it is just "the 21st-century version of creationism," as a lawyer for the plaintiffs, Eric Rothschild, put it in his opening argument.
He said that the board's own documents would show that its members initially had discussed teaching "creationism" — one former member said he wanted class time evenly split between creationism and evolution — and that they substituted the words "intelligent design" only when they were made aware by lawyers of the constitutional problems involved. (In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that teaching creation science in public schools was unconstitutional because it was based on religion.)
But arguing about the defendants' motives is also an unsound argument against intelligent design. Even if proponents of ID are unmasked as creationists and devout believers, they can legitimately take the position that they have found scientific evidence in support of their religious faith — and that they are only advocating that this scientific evidence be taught in science classrooms.
Thankfully, the plaintiffs' courtoom strategy also contains rational elements. Prof. Miller will confront the ID theory directly and seek to show the court that the Pandas textbook is "inaccurate and downright false in every section."
That would be the right way to conduct this argument.
A technical examination of the basis for intelligent design may well find it uninformed. I'm no biologist, and on that issue, I'm an agnostic.
The above based on A Web of Faith, Law and Science in Evolution Suit and Evolution Lawsuit Opens in Pennsylvania, New York Times, September 26, 2005 and September 27, 2005 respectively. Above text includes excerpts from these articles.
See Also: My more detailed criticism of mainstream science's objections in Issue Ratatouille (among several topics discussed in that piece).
Edited:nd
Edited:cr
Article comments
1 - Silas Kain
Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design. TEACH IT ALL! Let the students use their own naturally inquisitive minds to sort out the details and develop their own conclusions. When one is given all the facts and is taught to reason with intelligence, the answers will come.
2 - KFC
This sort of thing should be decided at the local level. That said, I beg fellow Christians to stop rejecting evolution out of hand instead of finding compatibility with the creation story. It's really starting to make us look bad.
3 - Alethinos
There IS no scientific evidence of God. I am a believer in God. I am certain that the Universe as we see it and know it was created by God. However, on BOTH scientific AND spiritual grounds I do NOT believe that there is a "bridge" from the physical Universe to the Gates of Heaven.
On a theological level, if we assume, as most all major religions do that God is Infinite, is is beyond human comprehension and indeed MUST by God's very NATURE be outside of Existence as we know it... Then there is no road that leads from what we see here to God's door. Creation, as magnificant as it is, does not, in itself "prove" God's existence.
Simply because science, which is an EVOLVING human endeavor, still cannot explain certain biological questions is in no way a "proof" that God's fingerprints can be seen. We can run this absurd ID tenet backward and look at the MOUNTAINS of things that science COULDN'T explain a century ago. Now they have been explained.
At the time, as religious zelots railed against science they pointed to things that science couldn't explain THEN and offered this as proof of God's existence and direct hand in our universe. As science worked on, one by one these assertions were crushed.
I believe in God. I believe also in evolution. I believe that man has a rational soul and ALWAYS has had - but that our physical form has obviously evolved over time. Simply becuase science cannot "prove" that doesn't in any way threaten my faith.
Those on the Christian religious right, who have historically insisted in such absurdities as the inerrancy of the Bible and that heaven is some physical place cannot, in their terribly narrow minds, conceive of a larger existence... Consequently they wish to bring everyone else down who frightens and threatens their childish notions.
THIS is what is at stake and this is why ID needs to be opposed at every step.
Alethinos
4 - Brandon
thank you silas, right you are
but evolution and creationism go hand in hand comon ansestry is the word your looking for not evolution the only scientificly sound theory of evolution is the combination of adaption and natural selection
common ansestry on the other hand is the THEORY that all animals came from the same strand of DNA that just magicly apeared out of nowhere a feat which is less likely than MT. Rushmore making itself besides if you go by the big bang theory we've only had about 3 trillon years to gain about a 98% change in dna which any scientest with knoledge on this subject would say that is imposible as in the last 4000 years we've only had a 1*10^-560 percent change yo do the math it just doesnt seem fesible
-Christans stand by your guns God exisits
5 - Brandon
sory no 0 on 1*10^-560 sould read 1*10^-56
6 - Uriel
Alethinos writes:
I think this argument can only be made if the evidence of intelligent design is not obvious enough. Consider the hypothetical scenario given in my earlier Issue Ratatouille:
7 - ClubhouseCancer
What if the stars all aligned into a perfect animated portrait of former Full House star Dave Coulier, dressed up like Fidel Castro, dancing about merrily? That would be great!
But what if they all lined up in the shape of a huge arrow and came hurtling toward earth really fast! Ahhhhhh!
That would be really scary.
What if they all went dark at the same time, and then just suddenly turned back on, except in wild colors?
Man, I freakin' love science.
8 - gonzo marx
argh...
sorry to disagree with Silas a bit on this one...no, i DO think all shoudl be taught...but there is ONE big difference..
keep Science in the science class...and place the rest in Metaphysics or Theology where they belong..
interesting indeed that a self professed atheist is named "Uriel" (angel of fire, if memory serves)
Uriel sez...
*Even if proponents of ID are unmasked as creatonists and devout believers, they can legitimately take the position that they have found scientific evidence in support of their religious faith*
excuse me..WHERE is the "scientific evidence"..please show me some...not one single iota of "proof" or "evidence" that would stand the rigors of scientific review has been put forward...just unfounded speculation...
so the entire thrust of this Post falls apart when this simple and unarguable Fact is exposed...
until such a time as ID can pass the rigors of scientific methodology it is NOT science and does NOT belong in a HS biology class...but it IS an excellent subject for discussion in a Metaphysics/Philosophy class
ID = unprovabe hypothesis = Metaphysics
Evoloution = by definition scientific Theory = science
gnosis > dogma
nuff said?
Excelsior!
9 - Mark Saleski
well put. i think it'd be great if we had more comparitive religious study at the high school level. too many americans know too little about non-christian religions.
10 - Alethinos
Uriel it's logic like that which keeps men, such as ourselves, thinking that IF the RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES COME ABOUT... Angalina Joelie will realize, on seeing US that Brad's a real loser...
Keep believing though U! It could happen... in about 1,000,000,000,000,0000 years...
Something I should say in seriousness though... Miracles don't work. They never have. If one examines CAREFULLY the New Testament claims on the miracles of Jesus Christ - and then count the number of people who actually BELIEVED in Him afterward and FOLLOWED him it was next to nothing....
This doesn't say much for miracles. Faith based on miracles is shaky indeed. Indeed Christ said this to Thomas. Miracles are good for ONLY those who were immediately there... Everyone else coming later can choose of course to believe it but why? The real miracle of Christ was His Message and His life...
Alethinos
11 - Silas Kain
I'll go along with that Gonzo. We should be teaching metaphysics and comparative religion in schools. Our kids should have a keen understanding of other religions and cultures. That's the gift of living in a diverse nation such as ours. In order for real integration to be achieved, we have to bridge the divides. We have to enlighten people to all facets of humanity's jewel. Through comprehensive education, character, accountability and encouragement of a strong sense of community we can build that Reaganesque city. Lady Liberty's torch burned out long ago in the hearts and minds of many outside our borders. It's time to light that lamp again and illuminate the minds of our own and send them into the world proclaiming democracy's promise. It all may sound romantic but it is truth, and, that my friends, will always keep us free.
12 - troll
Please teach ID in bio class - as one of many examples of how not to do science...metaphysics is rarely introduced as a field of study in middle and high school curricula as it should be
troll
13 - G. Oren
Good posts ya'll. Alethinos, I agree with your analysis, as far as it goes. Acquinas, I think, was on the right track, but that is metaphysics. The scientific method will most likely never deliver a "proof of God", it is rightly focused on the purely natural what Walker Percy called the dyadic model. When it comes to studying man as man, the dyadic model breaks down. In other words, we can't explain, for example, how children learn to talk - to become symbol mongers - to name things. For those interested in such things, I would recommend Percy's collection of essays "Message in the Bottle" and "Lost in the Cosmos". I am no semiotician, and can only wrestle with these things myself.
That our fundamentalist brethren need to examine their own presumptions is obvious. We make ourselves more stupid than we are by insisting on a too literal reading and intepretation of scripture. That the atheist scientist fails to recognize that what he is arguing is that reason itself came about from random chance - a proof that no proofs are rational - should also be pointed out.
14 - T A Dodger
Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design. TEACH IT ALL!
I usually agree with you, Silas, but I'm afraid the above is the equivalent of saying "teach the earth-centered and sun-centered systems together, and let the kids figure it out." We already know which is right, and students shouldn't have to reinvent the wheel in high school.
There is a scientific consensus on evolution, and it is what should be taught in basic biology. If credible opposition to evolution develops among scientists, the objections to the theory will begin to be taught in university and will eventually (if born out) become part of the lower level curriculum.