Intelligent design? Continued
You tell me that it's evolution, well you know...
August 14, 2005
Just when you thought it was safe to go back out into the jungle and evolve naturally, the latest Time Magazine issue forces us to revisit the intelligent design v. evolution "debate." Proving once again the power of the presidential pulpit, the magazine devoted its cover story to the issue shortly after Bush's endorsement of teaching ID in schools. As is typical of the mainstream media, Time presents the subject as a legitimate debate between two opposing theories, as opposed to, let's say, a theory that represents nearly universal scientific opinion versus the ruminations of the American fringe right. Not to miss out on good right wing blather, The Washington Times celebrates intelligent design as an exercise in intellectual curiosity while attacking Darwinists as anti-religious, closed-minded ideologues.
MYTH: We should teach intelligent design as well as evolution in public schools and let our kids decide which theory they prefer
What this debate shows is how intellectuals, so called, are quick to ridicule religious folk, much in the way that Bishop Wilberforce made fun of Huxley. If religion was once regarded as the key to history, as Lord Acton observed, "in today's intellectual circles ... it's more like the skunk at the table"
-- Suzanne Fields, "Designing and Intelligent Debate," Washington Times, 08/08/05
But whether you believe ID theory ought to get equal billing with Darwinian theory, some lesser treatment, or that students should at least be apprised of alleged chinks in the Darwinian armor, what's all the fuss about? Don't academics purport to champion free and open inquiry? What, then, are they so afraid of regarding the innocuous introduction into the classroom of legitimate questions concerning Darwinism? Their defensiveness toward challenges to their dogma is inexplicable unless you understand their attitude as springing from a worldview steeped in strong, secular predispositions that must be guarded with a blind religious fervor. Indeed, it appears many Darwinists are guilty of precisely that of which they accuse ID proponents: having a set of preconceived assumptions that taint their scientific objectivity.
But that is simply false. ID is fundamentally science-based. The fact that scientific inquiry leads certain scientists toward a conclusion compatible with the Judeo-Christian worldview -- that intelligent causes were behind the creation of the universe and life -- does not disqualify them as scientists any more than the militant secularism of many Darwinists disqualifies them.
-- David Limbaugh, "Intelligent Design Stirrings," Washington Times, 08/09/05
REALITY
Let's face it, the mere existence of David and Rush Limbaugh call both evolution and Intelligent Design into question. Maybe if it rested on irreducible obesity..
Constantly debunking the canard that the left does hates religion would implicitly legitimize right-wing vitriol. Consequently, we would prefer to focus on the claim that teaching intelligent design in public school science classes is reflective of a society that values “free and open inquiry.” This assertion depends on the notion that intelligent design is a scientific theory, but as we discussed last week, it is a religious view. Exposing flaws in evolutionary theory is a scientific exercise, but plugging those holes with divinity is an act of faith. Free and open societies do not have an obligation to humor religious zealots by pretending that their theological theories are acceptable substitutes for scientific inquiry. Just as astrology has no place in an astronomy class, intelligent design theory has no place in a biology class.
Elsewhere on the Washington Times op-ed page, Suzanne Fields agrees with this analysis. She grants that intelligent design is not a scientific theory and as such, should not be taught as part of a science course. Incredibly, she still endorses teaching intelligent design theory to public schools students, which makes her argument more outrageous than that of David Limbaugh.
MYTH: Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools—but not as part of a science class
As far as I can tell the president does not advocate teaching "intelligent design," the belief that a divine hand was at work creating the universe, as a scientific course, but to let children know there's a debate over Charles Darwin's theory that man evolved from lower life forms. Fair enough.
-- Suzanne Fields, "Designing and Intelligent Debate," Washington Times, 08/08/05
REALITY
The genius of the intelligent design (ID) movement is that, by disguising religion as science, it is better situated than creationism to gain acceptance in the education and legal communities. Apparently, Fields is unaware of this very important and intentional aspect of intelligent design theory. For conservatives, framing ID as science is essential because, if it is not considered a scientific theory, then any state law attempting to inject the religious theory into the public school system would violate the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution.
The crucial Supreme Court case in this area is Edwards v. Aguillard. The 1987 decision struck down a Louisiana state law that required public schools to devote an equal amount of time to both creationism and evolution. Entitled the “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act,” the law did not require schools to teach creationism unless evolution was taught. The Supreme Court ruled that the law “violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment." According to Justice Brennan’s majority opinion, The Louisiana Creationism Act advances a religious doctrine by requiring either the banishment of the theory of evolution from public school classrooms or the presentation of a religious viewpoint that rejects evolution in its entirety. The Act violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose."
Anti-Darwinists who see Intelligent Design as a trojan horse -- an opportunity counter Darwin -- should pay particular attention to Brennan’s last sentence. It is hard to envision a pro-Intelligent Design legal reform that would not seek “to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose.” That, of course, doesn’t mean they won’t try.
In summary, intelligent design is not a scientific theory; it is merely an update of creationism. The goal of injecting intelligent design into public school science classes is to supplant evolution, which right-wing Christians wrongly believe is incompatible with the existence of God. Since ID is part of a religious agenda, and the US Supreme Court has ruled that a state-sponsored curriculum that is designed “to achieve a religious purpose” violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, intelligent design has no scientific or legal place in the public school system.
