E-journal Online Opinion published a piece today titled Evolutionary science isn’t a closed book about the pros and cons of teaching Intelligent Design (ID) in schools and universities.
I read about the concept of ID in the August 15 issue of Time magazine.
It seemed to me to be just a rehash of the creationists argument that because we have such magnificent adaptations, e.g. the human eye, we must have been created by god (… for some ID believers, designed by an alien).
According to the article in Time magazine there has been lots of outrage because President Bush suggested “lessons in evolution include a discussion of Intelligent Design.”
The piece at OLO includes,
The battle lines are rigid. The US science establishment is adamant that ID casts doubt on well-established science, using specious evidence and faulty logic. The attempted incursion into the classroom is not to be tolerated. End of story. Add to this the legal campaign to maintain an iron wall of separation between church and state, and you have a belligerent “them” and “us”.
For their part, the ID leaders are a different breed from evangelical creationists who insist on a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis and Bible Belt morality. They hold PhDs in biology and mathematics from leading universities; some are tenured professors. Their organisational base, the Discovery Institute, located in Seattle, Washington, makes effective use of online, print and DVD promotion. By such means the institute reaches any teacher or student curious enough to run a Google search. Those who look discover telling points scored against the standard position, at least for those at the beginner level, and this embarrassment partly accounts for the science establishment’s anger.
I actually agree with Bush in so much as contrasting belief in ID (and creation)with the theory of evolution is a good way of illustrating the difference between belief and faith versus evidence and science. Let the students learn the difference (between faith and science) and make up their own minds.
PS I really enjoyed discussion of Gould and Ethridge’s ‘punctuated equilibrium theory‘ when I was at university.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Christianity would do themselves a big favour by walking away from Creationism, it’s bigger than a Siberian swamp. I believe darwin did allow for some “alien” intervention but I cant remeber the quote.
Perhaps all God did was ensure Earth was placed a comfortable distance from the Sun to allow life to evolve.
Science teachers could take a step back and allow a debate on the subject; if their science is correct they have nothing to fear.
Science should be able to understand faith.
ID is religion and can be taught OK in religious class.
Evolution is a science and is taught in science.
Now please visit my new religion, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. BTW if ID can be taught as a ‘science’ then so can FSMism.
http://www.venganza.org/
Intelligent Design is basically a tautology. That said, Creationism is simply a very naive interpretation of historical texts.
One particular example often used is the atmosphere composition of the earth in respect of helium. Calculate the possible quantity of uranium etc in the earth’s rocks, compute the helium emitted over geologic time and then compare it with the existing atmospheric composition and one quickly comes to the conclusion that the earth’s atmosphere is 10,000 years old. Hence by extrapolation so must the earth be.
Really?
There is, on the logic involved in this argument, too little helium in our atmosphere which uniformist explanations usually invoke as loss of helium to space etc (note the usual uniformist use of hiding the data in untestable situations).
The English science journalist Richard Milton has summarised the facts in his various publications and are necessary reading.
So what is going on ?
Firstly is the assumption that all the uranium on and in the planet earth formed 4.5 Ma ago. On what evidence? This is Creationism, of course.
Secondly is the misinterpretation that the helium content of the earth’s atmosphere is also the age of the earth. The earth’s atmospere MIGHT be 10,000 years old but that has nothing at all to do with the age of the earth. And to make matters worse, this computation depends totally on the assumption that ALL uranium was formed 4.5 Ma ago. Add the complexity that uranium might have been formed on the earth’s surface at differing periods of geological time results in a rather profound problem.
Personally I have considered a third alternative, unllike the ID camp or their opponents, in that life IS, and that given the right physical and chemical conditions, just appears and exists. Change the environment and life adapts to new life forms compatible with the new physical-chemical conditions.
Other than that I have not idea at all what life is all about.
I think the concept of a Flying Spaghetti Monster and his noodly bits doings things is infinitely more plausible.
But what really gets me is the simplistic association between GW and the decline in the number of pirates. That just cant be true.
It is much more likely to be the combined effects of all those Indians and Chinese farting at day break, and the gas cloud combining over the Himalayas and melting the glaciers. Thats much more plausible and on the balance of probability could be the cause of all our woes.Would anyone like to join me in screwing about $5m out of the public purse as a research project to investigate it.It would set us up quite nicely for retirement.
All we need is good acronym and an Intergovermental Committee backed by the UN, and we can create a whole new self sustaining industry, and live happily ever after.
And Michael Duffy had a piece in Saturday’s SMH:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/empty-lesson-in-flawed-thinking/2005/09/02/1125302739192.html .
Duffy’s article is interesting.
The problem is that evolutionists and creationists, while rhetorially different, are the same. Both start with nothng, and then proceed via different paths.