Competing Editorials
Interesting competing editorials on Intelligent Design. (For and Against)
[Pre-post note: I dont' wish to pick a fight with anyone and I also realize that I make a few generalities that may not apply to every single evolutionist. Just as there are differing brands of Intelligent Design, there are differing brands of evolutionism.]
Basically, the foundation of Intelligent Design is that there are certain biological structures and systems that couldn't have arisen through evolution, by mere chance. Since one might say something happening by chance is "uncaused," one might also say that these systems and structures couldn't be uncaused; they must have been caused. Hence the theory of Intelligent Design allows for an intelligence driving the formation of these systems and structures.
Notice a few things. Intelligent Design makes no reference to the Christian God of the Bible, or any other sort of divinity, for that matter. Also, its logic begins with the failure of evolution to explain certain phenomena, not with scientists' desire to bring God into the picture or to proselytize the nation's youth.
Is that extremist? Is that radical? Is that "sectarian dogma," as Scott and Branch put it? I would hope not.
Teaching high schoolers the failures of evolution theory isn't going to cause the scientific world to come crumbling down. Indeed, there is room here for scientific progress! Isn't that the way science works? We make a theory and observe whether or not the world behaves as we theorize it does. If the theory fails (as it is bound to; no theory is perfect) we make a new theory, taking into account the failures of the last one. That's what's happening with quantum theory right now: it has failed to reconcile with observation, and various string and superstring theories have emerged. If anti-design scientists accept that evolution, being a theory, necessarily has failures, they can strive to come up with a newer, better theory that reckons better with observation. Any "scientist" who denies this course of action because it calls for an Intelligent Designer they don't believe in is no longer a scientist; they have mixed their personal beliefs with scientific theory. Just what they accuse the Intelligent Design-ists of doing.
Granted, I'd be a hypocrite if I were to say that Intelligent Design is without its fallacies. But I think it's a reasonable explanation of phenomena that evolution can't explain.
And as far as teaching it in high school, is it not more "dogmatic" to teach students only the conventional views of evolution and not address its failures? What's the problem with teaching students both sides of the issue? (Just because you teach Intelligent Design doesn't mean you have to stop teaching evolution.) And if you'd tell me "separation of church and state," I'd remind you that Intelligent Design has nothing to say about the nature of the designer; it has nothing to do with religion.
I think it's interesting that it takes just as much faith to not believe in God as it does to believe in Him. People who say God doesn't exist because science can't prove He does are making a very large leap. Why can't science prove He exists? Because God is necessarily supernatural, above and beyond the realms of natural science. Hence, for the same reason you can't prove He exists, you can't prove He doesn't either. The fact that you can't prove He exists doesn't disprove His existence. I make my leap of faith in saying God exists, and the atheist makes his leap of faith in saying God doesn't exist. We both leap the same distance; any atheist has the same amount of blind faith in his or her belief system as I do.
[Pre-post note: I dont' wish to pick a fight with anyone and I also realize that I make a few generalities that may not apply to every single evolutionist. Just as there are differing brands of Intelligent Design, there are differing brands of evolutionism.]
Basically, the foundation of Intelligent Design is that there are certain biological structures and systems that couldn't have arisen through evolution, by mere chance. Since one might say something happening by chance is "uncaused," one might also say that these systems and structures couldn't be uncaused; they must have been caused. Hence the theory of Intelligent Design allows for an intelligence driving the formation of these systems and structures.
Notice a few things. Intelligent Design makes no reference to the Christian God of the Bible, or any other sort of divinity, for that matter. Also, its logic begins with the failure of evolution to explain certain phenomena, not with scientists' desire to bring God into the picture or to proselytize the nation's youth.
Is that extremist? Is that radical? Is that "sectarian dogma," as Scott and Branch put it? I would hope not.
Teaching high schoolers the failures of evolution theory isn't going to cause the scientific world to come crumbling down. Indeed, there is room here for scientific progress! Isn't that the way science works? We make a theory and observe whether or not the world behaves as we theorize it does. If the theory fails (as it is bound to; no theory is perfect) we make a new theory, taking into account the failures of the last one. That's what's happening with quantum theory right now: it has failed to reconcile with observation, and various string and superstring theories have emerged. If anti-design scientists accept that evolution, being a theory, necessarily has failures, they can strive to come up with a newer, better theory that reckons better with observation. Any "scientist" who denies this course of action because it calls for an Intelligent Designer they don't believe in is no longer a scientist; they have mixed their personal beliefs with scientific theory. Just what they accuse the Intelligent Design-ists of doing.
Granted, I'd be a hypocrite if I were to say that Intelligent Design is without its fallacies. But I think it's a reasonable explanation of phenomena that evolution can't explain.
And as far as teaching it in high school, is it not more "dogmatic" to teach students only the conventional views of evolution and not address its failures? What's the problem with teaching students both sides of the issue? (Just because you teach Intelligent Design doesn't mean you have to stop teaching evolution.) And if you'd tell me "separation of church and state," I'd remind you that Intelligent Design has nothing to say about the nature of the designer; it has nothing to do with religion.
I think it's interesting that it takes just as much faith to not believe in God as it does to believe in Him. People who say God doesn't exist because science can't prove He does are making a very large leap. Why can't science prove He exists? Because God is necessarily supernatural, above and beyond the realms of natural science. Hence, for the same reason you can't prove He exists, you can't prove He doesn't either. The fact that you can't prove He exists doesn't disprove His existence. I make my leap of faith in saying God exists, and the atheist makes his leap of faith in saying God doesn't exist. We both leap the same distance; any atheist has the same amount of blind faith in his or her belief system as I do.