Recently several school boards here in the US have started requiring that Intelligent Design (if you aren’t up on what ID is and want to read the rest of this post and not be confused, read the stuff at this link) be taught in biology classes. Their reasoning for this is that because there are aspects of the development of life on Earth that the Theory of Evolution can’t explain we have no recourse but to fall back on some supernatural entity to fill in the gaps.
I see this as akin to humans thousands of years ago trying to appease deities to which they’d accredited the causation of natural phenomenon in order to stave off the next drought or to induce a milder winter or to keep them safe from lightning. They have no rational explanation (yet), and so they throw up their hands and don’t try.
(This also gives me visions of the Barbie doll that used to say ‘math is hard’ or something similarly implicitly demeaning toward women, although this is perhaps less relevant.)
Now, first of all, pretty much all theories have or have had gaps and these gaps are steadily filled through research and experimentation (and history bears this out again and again and again and again – you get the idea). Can you imagine where we’d be if Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch had just thrown up their hands and attributed the causation of disease to intelligent design just because biology and medicine didn’t yet have a theory to explain the communicability of disease? Hurrah for 18th century medicine and sepsis!
Are we to explain the timing of earthquakes by appealing to Poseidon’s (and you thought he was just in charge of the oceans, hah) irritation with us because geologists haven’t figured out how to predict them?
What reveals their agenda to some extent is that they don’t attack other theories, some of which are much less solid than evolution. This agenda, of course, is to promote religion in public schools. And ‘they’ are mainly the neo-conservatives and religious right – the overwhelming majority of scientists feel that introducing ID into the classroom is a very bad idea.
What’s funny is that it’s really a false dichotomy if you ask me. Maybe there really is an intelligent designer. Maybe the Christian God did create the world 6K years ago and just set up everything to make it look like it all kicked off 15 billion years ago with a huge explosion. How do we tell the difference?
Even if there is an ID, we can not deny that modern scientific research and methodogy has been a successful mechanism for discovery and learning for hundreds of years. Now, I’m not going to try to argue that science is some sort of holy grail (sic) – we’ve done some pretty horrible things with the tools science has given us, as well as some truly great things I’m just saying that clearly it works, whether because we live in a theistically vacuous universe or because the ID set it up to work the way it does.
Either way, it seems to that we have an obligation to keep pecking away at the truth. To figure out how to predict earthquakes, to find a cure for cancer, to develop renewable energy sources. Maybe somewhere in our explorations we’ll discover real evidence of ID. Even if we never do, it doesn’t rule out matters of faith. By definition, it can’t. If it turns out that the ID is omnipotent/omniscience and its existence really is a matter of faith then so be it, we’re never going to find the evidence, but there still seems worth in advancing human understanding!
I have a couple other basic issues with the ID agenda. First, the main idea behind the separation of church and state is to protect everyone’s religious freedom. If the IDers succeed in getting their creationist toe in the door, what next? How do we decide who’s brand of creationism to teach? To say we’re a Christian nation (which makes my teeth itch, btw) and leave it at that is ridiculously naive. Christians span a huge range of creationist scenarios: young earth, old earth, biblically literal, biblically metaphorical, and so on. Not to mention the fact that there are Christians who are evolutionists! Keep subjective religious matters out of the objective scientific classroom, for all our sakes.
Second, by promoting the ID agenda, these people are in essence admitting that they need scientific proof – i.e. denying the role of faith. Now, obviously this isn’t the case for all religions, but most (all?) Judeo-Christian sects(and lets face it, that’s who makes up the religious right in this country) state that belief in God is a matter of faith, not proof. Can’t they see they’re taking a huge risk here?
What happens if we do finally come up with a seamless theory of evolution? By hitching their religion, their ‘faith’, to a formerly incomplete scientific theory they’ve done the truly faithful a monstrous disservice and left the ones who bought into their crazy scheme out in the cold.
Here’s a link to start exploring this who ID/evolution this. It’s anti-ID in the classroom, but there are links that will get you to the pro-ID in the classroom stuff. And here’s a link that explains the over all argument, albeit from the anti-ID-in-schools side as well.