True Colors
President Bush makes a comment that endorses "intelligent design". [link]
ID, as it's known to supporters, posits that the complexity of natural world is so great that it could not have evolved on its own, but must have resulted from an "intelligent designer". Critics say that ID is merely thinly-veiled creationism that doesn't belong in our children's science classes. Supporters insist it's not about religion, just alternative science.
Not so fast. Upon hearing the President's comment, Stephen Meyer, the director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (The institute is a leader in developing intelligent design), is quoted in the New York Times as saying this: "We interpret this as the president using his bully pulpit to support freedom of inquiry and free speech about the issue of biblical origins."
Question: If ID is about science, what's with the reference to "biblical origins"?
True colors, if you ask me.
posted by Daniel at 7:35 AM
3 Comments:
Here's what President Bush is quoted as saying:
"I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught."
"so people can understand what the debate is about."
"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," he said, adding that "you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."
What, specifically, in the President's remarks do you disagree with? Note that he makes no mention of the Bible. Nor does he say that non-scientific creation stories should be given equal time in science courses, or even be mentioned at all. As I paraphrase his remarks, he starts off by saying that both the Darwinian and non-Darwinian accounts should be properly taught. Who would want to have them improperly taught? Next, he makes his context clear by saying the purpose of properly teaching this different views is so that people can (properly) understand what the debate is about. In other words, he is not talking about science curricula, but about a debate between two accounts of how life developed. If that debate is our concern then we would need to hear both sides to make a proper determination about which (if either) was better. He then closes by endorsing the idea that people get exposure to different ideas. Those who would disagree with such a platitude must claim that some ideas should not get a hearing (perhaps because they are dangerous or a waste of time or too far out of the mainstream). But I think the burden of justification should be on those who would suppress certain ideas without allowing them a public hearing.
First, you're taking the President's comments somewhat out of context. The question he was asked was whether he supports the teaching of intelligent design. Thus, his initial premise is that both it and evolution should be taught in the schools.
Here's what I disagree with: Not every idea does deserve time in our curricula. If I believed that the birthing process described by science is too implausible to be true, and that a more plausible explanation is that storks bring babies, does that "theory" deserve to be taught in the schools? Of course not. "Storkism" ought to be subjected to scientific debate and only taught if it passes certain basic tests of plausibility.
The fact is, evolution as a theory has withstood rigorous debate within the academic community, including the testing of hypotheses, intensive data collection and peer review of results. Intelligent design has not -- for example, how do you test for the existence of some "intelligent designer"? Ultimately, you can't, which means you're not in the realm of science, but philosophy. Now, in the teaching of evolution, could there be an objective teaching of the controversy surrounding it (along the lines of "not everyone agrees with the conclusions of evolution; some believe that life is divinely created or inspired")? Sure -- why not? But that's different from teaching ID as an established counter-theory.
The President endorsed teaching it as the former. And that's what I object to.
After rereading Bruce's comment, I feel it's important to point out that my initial post was not primarily an objection to the President's comments; as Bruce notes, they are carefully neutral (although contextually loaded). Actually, the point of the post was that one of the principal backers of ID, the Discovery Institute, reacted to the President's remarks by talking about biblical origins. This is what caught my attention -- even the backers of this "theory" seem to be conceding, in candid moments, that their interest is not in teaching alternative science, but in teaching a theologically Christian view of creation as "science".
Post a Comment
<< Home