Intelligent Design makes the evening news

Tonight (1/18), ABC's World News Tonight covered the virtual civil war in Dover, Pennsylvania over introducing "Intelligent Design" into the school curriculum.

Like everything else in America now, this debate is way too polarized. Religious people think their opponents are immoral (science teacher Brian Ream, a school board candidate who favors evolution -- and "a leader in his own church" -- was gratuitiously asked in his interview if he'd ever been accused of child abuse). Scientific-minded people think their opponents are ignorant. Intelligent Design is regarded by both sides (with horror by liberals, and with approbation by conservatives) as a stalking horse for Biblical creationism, which about half of Dover (like about one-third of America) seems to believe in.

To me, the revelation here is not the rigid dogmatism of literal Bible-believers -- so what's new? -- but the equally rigid dogmatism of allegedly "enlightened" Darwin-believers. Attune your ears to the words "believe in evolution", as in, "He doesn't believe in evolution." "Of course I believe in evolution." Notice how often you hear those words. What is the word "believe" doing in a supposedly scientific context? It betrays the reality that Darwinism is not just a scientific theory (and one for which the actual evidence is much spottier than you're told), but also a modern faith and ethos -- a faith in the ultimacy of matter and chance, and an ethos that too often uses the concept of what's "natural" to proclaim the inevitability of all sorts of bad behavior, whether it's male promiscuity or capitalist rapacity.

It's almost always the third way that attracts me -- neither the steep and thorny road to heaven nor the primrose path to hell, but "the green road to faerie land," as in the old ballad "Thomas Rhymer."

- amba

Comments

[Michael]

Well, I don't -believe- in evolution, I think evolution is a scientific theory backed very solidly by evidence.

Intelligent Design does not meet the criteria for a scientific theory, and does not belong in the science classroom.

We as a nation do a poor job of educating our children at the K-12 level, and I think it's absurd to lower standards even further by pretending ID is science to satisfy someones -religious- beliefs.

[amba]

Anyone who "believes" that the theory of evolution by natural selection of random mutations is solidly, scientifically proven shouldn't be afraid to read Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing. If you "believe" that Darwin's theory in its entirety is beyond challenge, and you don't see why you should have to bother to entertain and try to refute any argument to the contrary, consider the possibility that you may indeed be a "true believer." Science by definition is supposed to entertain, even welcome, tests and challenges. Only dogma does not.

[Michael]

I don't think that the theory of evolution is beyond challenge.

Indeed, -by definition-, all scientific knowledge is contingent, and based on the evidence we have at hand, and is subject to change when new knowledge becomes available.

I've seen nothing in ID, however, to suggest that it's science. Instead, it seems to resort to the 'god is in the gaps' argument for the existence of god. "I don't know how it could have happened naturally so God must have done it" -is not- science.

We know far more about how evolutionary processes work than we do about, for example, gravity. Our 'theory of gravity' describes -what- gravity does, not how it does it. Should we be adding disclaimers about the theory of gravity to high school text books?

Now, if you are going to argue that science -as practiced- (rather than scientific method as an epistemological approach) is full of very human politics, I'll agree with you.

However - that argument is not enough to refute current evolutionary theory, or elevate ID to science.

Now, ID as a part of compartive religion classes in our schools would be a wonderful thing, but I suspect too many fundamentalists would disapprove.

My oldest son recently graduated from high school with an International Baccelaureate diploma. This program has an internationally recognized cirriculum that includes a full year of a class called 'Theory of Knowledge'. This class examines quite a few things, including, at least briefly, the philosophy behind scientific method.

I, for one, would be much happier if we taught -all- our children to examine the basis for their claims to knowledge, rather than just trying to pour facts into their heads.

Oh, even though I frequently disagree with you, I enjoy your blog.

[Pimme]

Darwin didn't know everything, and for some, the existance of God will be a myth unless they see God for themselves some day. So, why bother teaching either in school? Stick to educating the kids about things that will land them a job someday.

[Joe]

Well..........I read it all anyway.

[sleipner]

Argh! The only reason why the word "belief" is applied to evolution is because the creationists say the evolutionists are treating evolutionary theory as a religion.

Certainly there are various parts of the theory that are either more or less well supported by evidence, and any truly scientific mind appreciates and highlights that distinction.

However, just because there is a relative lack of evidence for some aspects of the theory does not mean you toss the theory & whip out the God card! It just means that we need to find new and better means of exploring those more difficult questions - and I do NOT mean through thought experiments and philosophy.

The reason why some areas are less well supported (such as the initial origin of life) is because there is little to no surviving evidence we can peruse. In the 4+ billion years since life began, almost the entire crust of the earth has been recycled. Plus the soft-bodied critters prevalent in the first billion or so years could only leave fossils under the most extreme circumstances.

And good point about gravity, Michael. We know gravity exists, we're pretty certain how it acts on a macroscopic (but sub-galactic) scale, but all sorts of unanswered questions remain as to its mechanism, and how it works on either extremely small or large scales. We have a much better idea about how evolution works.