In the course of American history the teaching of the theory of evolution has been a forum for heated discussion. In the historic Supreme Court case Epperson v Arkansas the court ruled that it is unconstitutional to forbid the teaching of Darwin’s theory of evolution in public schools. This ruling nullified laws in several states which forbade the teachings. Creationists, determined to enhance their religious agenda, have created a new “theory.” This theory is called intelligent design and once again the issue has penetrated the scientific world. The theory of intelligent design recognizes an “intelligent agent” who designed all things on earth. This premise has no scientific fact, and the arguments created by its advocates are logically unsound.
Science, as defined by Webster Dictionary, is the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding. Given that definition, teaching intelligent design in a science class is inherently against the basic principles of science. Scientific theories can be tested. The theory of evolution is a theory that can be tested. In tests in the 1990s scientists found that changes in DNA Sequences lead to a species to evolve. For example, when a group of white moths was placed in an environment not conducive to its survival the white moths DNA changed so that the moth would turn black. In a study in 2003, scientists reversed evolution in yeasts. By being able to control the evolutionary process scientists have proven, in at least some way, that the theory of evolution has merit.
On the contrary, the theory of intelligent design is not testable. One major component of a scientific theory is that it must be able to go through the scientific method. The scientific method is defined by Webster’s dictionary as principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. Intelligent design is not able to go through this process. What would the control group be? How could one test a theory that cannot provide evidence that a “higher being” exists? There are seven steps in the scientific method. The fourth step is: test your hypothesis by doing an experiment. How would one do this when testing intelligent design? Pray?
Yet another problem with intelligent design is that its arguments are loaded with logical fallacies. The principles of intelligent design is in itself question begging. When one states that there is an “intelligent agent” it does not answer the question of who is that agent, where is that agent? The inductive reasoning used to come to the conclusion of intelligent design is fallacious. Intelligent design advocates also use other fallacies such as: appeals to belief, appeals to common practice, bandwagon fallacies, and poisoning the well fallacies. For example, when arguing in support of intelligent design many will say most people believe in a higher power. This is an example of an appeal to common practice, an appeal to belief, and a bandwagon fallacy. Advocates also “poison the well” when they attack scientists who do not believe in a higher power and try to damage their character. The arguments in favor of intelligent design are illogical.
Should Intelligent design be taught in a science classroom with Darwin’s theory of evolution. ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Intelligent design should be offered as an elective in schools. This is an attractive way to add skepticism to theories of science. If intelligent design were to be taught as an optional elective rather than a requirement in a science class; it would be perfectly reasonable to teach this in any school. It is inherently wrong to force into science classes the agendas of neo-conservative Christian fundamentalists.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Owen, although I am not a total supporter of Intelligent Design, I do support its teaching in our school systems and science classes for one simple reason. School's choice of curriculum. Education has become to centralized and bureaucratic. It is one of the many areas that should not be regulated by the central government or in my opinion even the state government. Individual school boards should be able to decide to teach their children the way they feel is best. I understand there are some constitutional and funding flaws with this belief and I therefore I am not arguing fact, but one can hope.
Its not science though lol that was the whole point. Why not allow it as an elective as I suggest. Lets not force it in a science class when it by definition is not science.
If we are going to neuter all subjects based on subjectivity, let's re-write all the American History books, let's not allow French-Canadians to teach french, or movies ever to be shown in English class again. My point is, where is the line. Alot of subjects are taught imperfectly and the more they are regulated the worse our school system gets, not the better.
Intelligent Design should be taught in schools, but as as a class in the humanities or in the context of other religion-based conceptions of how the universe is organized. However, ID cuts off scientific inquiry at the knees by substituting curiosity and experimentation with the answer that life "was made this way by an intelligent being." And furthermore, localized education is a best case that will never benefit American kids. How many people refer to the American Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression as it is? Localized education means that prejudice and bias can determine what is taught in the classroom. That African Americans are biologically inferior? Sure, why not. That the Holocaust was a worthwhile experiment in genetics? These are clearly extreme examples, but that's where the slippery slope is.
The slope exists the other way too, The French and Indian War, most Native American History, African History ignored because it's not significant, the Mexican American War, the Spanish American War, Vietnam and Korea. They have been systematically written in such a way so as to not shed a bad light on the US government. So if the slope exists both ways, I'd rather have the school boards in charge than one overseeing government.
Post a Comment