All by Design
A federal judge appointed by George W. Bush has ruled that intelligent design can not be taught as science. The school board of Dover, Pennsylvania had tried to require science teachers to deliver a disclaimer about alleged gaps in the theory of evolution, and claimed that they were just putting forth another scientific theory rather than trying to cram religion into a science curriculum. Those claims were pretty fairly debunked at trial, to the point that the judge called the board’s decision “breathtaking inanity.” Various bloggers have already started dissecting the ruling; I like georgia10’s post over at Daily Kos.
One thing I find interesting about this whole debate is that in my Philosophy East & West classes, we’ve discussed the notion of intelligent design as a potential proof of the existence of God, right up there with the first-cause and ontological arguments. The particular essay we discuss in the class goes to great pains to suggest that if intelligent design is a valid argument, it is perfectly compatible with scientific theories regarding evolution, because evolution may itself be the mechanism by which God created human beings. (Granted, this requires a non-literal reading of the Bible or whatever scripture you prefer.) And the conversation fits perfectly inside a philosophy class. But I would never think that I’m qualified to go guest-lecture a biology class because I understand the teleological argument.
Of course, it should come as little surprise that Lore Sjoberg has his own theory to throw into the mix.
About Dave Thomer
Born and raised in Philadelphia. Studied philosophy at Fordham University in the Bronx, where I made many great friends and met my wonderful wife. We moved back to Philadelphia, where I studied philosophy some more and became a teacher. Online and off, I'm looking for ways that we can be better citizens and build stronger communities.
Tuesday, December 27th 2005 at 5:28 pm |
I wrote as much a little while ago, saying that Intelligent Design should go back one frame in the movie of the universe if it hopes to have any relevance. A general theory of evoluition (which would explain not only humans, but any ordered system that finds its origins in chaos) depends upon the prior existence of matter and time, but it can do nothing (and is meant to do nothing) about explaining their existence. If Intelligent Design is not committed to the creation story in the Bible (or, as you said, any other form of religious scripture), it should let evolution be and position itself in relation to any theory that attemps to explain how the something came from the nothing. That’s the field it wants to play in. I don’t know why its focusing on evolution.
Wednesday, December 28th 2005 at 9:47 pm |
Well, if the decision in the Dover case is any indication, the reason it’s focusing on evolution is precisely because it is committed to the creation story in the Bible. (At least one of them, anyway.) Intelligent design, in this context, is meant as an end-run around the ban on creationism. That the Dover board was so duplicitous in its behavior really serves to highlight that. Asdoes the fact that the ID supporters are so determined to fight this out within science classes, as opposed to the context of a social studies or religion course.
I wonder if Charles Peirce ever thought we’d still be fighting the authority-vs.-empiricism debate over a century later?
And welcome to Not News!