2008 Woodie Awards
'Intelligent Design' bad education
Benjamin Harris
Issue date: 12/3/07 Section: Opinions
What is the origin of life? What is the origin of humanity? Where should we turn to find the solutions to such perplexing mysteries?
Since the Dark Ages, religious authorities have asserted that there is no need to look any further than your neighborhood theologian to quench your human thirst for knowledge.
However, despite the efforts of the church, technology eventually enhanced the ability to acquire empirical data and more effective ways to analyze it were developed. Modern science was born.
It soon became obvious that church doctrine was not infallible. People began to realize that relying on the authority of the church for basic truth was incorrect and philosophers began to publish and disseminate ideas that became known as enlightenment thought.
A new resistance emerged, which continues to this day: Western Civilization resurrected reason. Religion has since slowly been forced to relinquish its monopoly on thought; kicking and screaming all the way.
In 1859 a British natural scientist named Charles Darwin published a work called "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Wikipedia describes it as well as I can, "It introduced the theory that populations evolve over the course of generations through a process of natural selection."
This is controversial to religious authoritarians because it contradicts the Bible's account of the origins of life.
Over time the science that Darwin's book founded, evolutionary biology, has gained a foothold in public education after a long uphill struggle. However, some people want to undermine science education by introducing a religious disclaimer into the curriculum.
They have repackaged Biblical creationism as "intelligent design" in an attempt to pawn it off as science in order to circumvent laws that prohibit pushing religion in public schools. Advocates of intelligent design stress that evolutionary biology is "only" a theory. Another quote from Wikipedia:
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory.
In fact, Darwin's theory has been confirmed by every test modern science has been able to throw at it, including genetics. On the other hand, intelligent design can not be tested. According to Wikipedia:
Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
Basic logic alone refutes it: intelligent design can not be the preferred explanation because it does not succeed in its intent, namely explaining the origins of life; rather it merely complicates the issue by introducing another element which must yet be accounted for.
Evolutionary biology has very practical relevance as we move forward as a species. It contributes important knowledge that leads to advances in fields such as agriculture and health sciences.
As human beings, we basically have two unique resources that give us our ability to compete for survival in a tempestuous universe: Opposable thumbs, and the ability to reason.
In 1859 one of the brighter representatives of our species used his ability to reason to enhance our understanding of truth, which is always valuable. However, there are those that would advocate dragging us back towards the Dark Ages by impeding our ability to pass the truth on to new generations through the public education system.
To these people I would say that you are within your rights to educate your children as you see fit. However, in order to comply with existing laws you must choose either private or home schooling if you wish to treat Biblical creationism as science.
The rest of us must exercise vigilance and display courage when battling against attempts to assert religious authority over public matters.
Benjamin Harris is a senior guitar performance major and can be reached at bmh2q@mtsu.edu.
Since the Dark Ages, religious authorities have asserted that there is no need to look any further than your neighborhood theologian to quench your human thirst for knowledge.
However, despite the efforts of the church, technology eventually enhanced the ability to acquire empirical data and more effective ways to analyze it were developed. Modern science was born.
It soon became obvious that church doctrine was not infallible. People began to realize that relying on the authority of the church for basic truth was incorrect and philosophers began to publish and disseminate ideas that became known as enlightenment thought.
A new resistance emerged, which continues to this day: Western Civilization resurrected reason. Religion has since slowly been forced to relinquish its monopoly on thought; kicking and screaming all the way.
In 1859 a British natural scientist named Charles Darwin published a work called "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Wikipedia describes it as well as I can, "It introduced the theory that populations evolve over the course of generations through a process of natural selection."
This is controversial to religious authoritarians because it contradicts the Bible's account of the origins of life.
Over time the science that Darwin's book founded, evolutionary biology, has gained a foothold in public education after a long uphill struggle. However, some people want to undermine science education by introducing a religious disclaimer into the curriculum.
They have repackaged Biblical creationism as "intelligent design" in an attempt to pawn it off as science in order to circumvent laws that prohibit pushing religion in public schools. Advocates of intelligent design stress that evolutionary biology is "only" a theory. Another quote from Wikipedia:
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory.
In fact, Darwin's theory has been confirmed by every test modern science has been able to throw at it, including genetics. On the other hand, intelligent design can not be tested. According to Wikipedia:
Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
Basic logic alone refutes it: intelligent design can not be the preferred explanation because it does not succeed in its intent, namely explaining the origins of life; rather it merely complicates the issue by introducing another element which must yet be accounted for.
Evolutionary biology has very practical relevance as we move forward as a species. It contributes important knowledge that leads to advances in fields such as agriculture and health sciences.
As human beings, we basically have two unique resources that give us our ability to compete for survival in a tempestuous universe: Opposable thumbs, and the ability to reason.
In 1859 one of the brighter representatives of our species used his ability to reason to enhance our understanding of truth, which is always valuable. However, there are those that would advocate dragging us back towards the Dark Ages by impeding our ability to pass the truth on to new generations through the public education system.
To these people I would say that you are within your rights to educate your children as you see fit. However, in order to comply with existing laws you must choose either private or home schooling if you wish to treat Biblical creationism as science.
The rest of us must exercise vigilance and display courage when battling against attempts to assert religious authority over public matters.
Benjamin Harris is a senior guitar performance major and can be reached at bmh2q@mtsu.edu.
Viewing Comments 1 - 6 of 11
bigbird
David
posted 12/03/07 @ 6:46 PM CST
It makes me wonder. I personally believe the world was created intelligently. I'm not saying science backs that up, but then again, it doesn't really prove that all this is an accident out of nothing either. (Continued…)
Carlton
posted 12/03/07 @ 9:32 PM CST
Ok, from what I know, life cant just start on its own. First of all, I think that contradicts the law of spontaneous generation. Second, there's never been any proof that life could have started from nothing. (Continued…)
Greg
posted 12/04/07 @ 12:17 AM CST
Answers to David's questions:
"Can there be equality in a world that was an accident, in a world with no reason for a beginning or consequence at the end?"
Darwin's theory is not a theory of "accidents," so I'm really not sure what you mean by this. (Continued…)
Herman Cummings
posted 12/04/07 @ 5:04 AM CST
A Scientific Prediction From Genesis
Besides myself, all others that try to tell us what Genesis says do not understand the text, and are speaking from ignorance. (Continued…)
Olorin
posted 12/07/07 @ 3:11 PM CST
Carlton (12/03/07 @ 9:32 PM CST) said: "[L]ife cant just start on its own. First of all, I think that contradicts the law of spontaneous generation."
My Creationism textbook doesn't include a law of spontaneous generation. (Continued…)
dkcaudill
posted 12/08/07 @ 2:18 PM CST
Ever look at the numbers on the percentage of the american population who believes in evolution? Because that's one thing that we have in common with the middle east. (Continued…)
Post a Comment