Wise On Intelligent Design In The Classroom
Jason Streitfeld
February 09, 2009
The state of biology education in America is alarming. This is not news. According to a well-known study of dozens of countries around the world, America is second only to Turkey in having the highest percentage of citizens who do not accept the scientific fact of evolution. According to a recent Penn State study, evolutionary theory is dangerously neglected in the biology classroom. Many teachers avoid the subject altogether, and only a small percentage emphasize its importance to the field of biology. Meanwhile, a number of them already discuss creationism in the classroom.
A broader cultural dilemma is involved: how to resolve the tension between science and religion in America. This is a serious issue, and I do not think America´s scientists are responding to it properly. America´s most outspoken supporters of evolutionary theory believe their biggest enemies are people who try to wedge discussions of Intelligent Design (ID) into the science classroom. This is a mistake.
Despite what many people think, a discussion of Intelligent Design is relevant to a science education. To properly understand biology, our students must understand evolutionary theory; and to properly understand evolutionary theory—to counteract the forces of ignorance in American society—they must grapple with Intelligent Design.
Introducing a discussion of Intelligent Design in the science classroom will not threaten the sanctity of a science education; on the contrary, it will open up students' minds to the full weight of evolutionary theory, and so properly counter the ignorance plaguing American society. The war against ignorance in America is not going to be won by banning discussions of Intelligent Design from the public classroom. The war is going to be won after a sound debunking of Intelligent Design becomes a required, integral part of science education in America.
The real enemy here is NOMA ("Non-Overlapping Magisteria," a phrase coined by the late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould). NOMA is a political principle which says that science and religion must be kept at arms length at all times. Their respective domains, their "magisteria," do not overlap. Science develops experimental models of nature; religion deals with questions of ultimate value and meaning in life. The two are not related, and so must keep out of each other's business.
NOMA has its critics, such as popular science writer and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and philosopher Daniel C. Dennett. Indeed, NOMA has a rather serious built-in flaw: when scientific practice challenges religious doctrine, NOMA offers no means of resolving the disputes. (See, for example, the cultural debates over abortion and stem cell research). In practical terms, NOMA seems only to serve as religion's protective shield against scientific scrutiny.
Regardless of its practical and philosophical problems, many science educators embrace NOMA as a way of avoiding religion in their classrooms. NOMA absolves them of responsibility, allowing them to act as though Intelligent Design, as threatening as it is to America's understanding of science, is not relevant to their work.
When it comes to science education, a hands-off agreement with religion (or with religiously motivated ideas, such as Intelligent Design) is a recipe for disaster. NOMA is the biggest enemy in the war against ignorance, because it allows students' misconceptions about evolution to go unchallenged, thus providing a sanctuary for their mistrust of science in general and evolutionary theory in particular.
Some science educators recognize the political inadequacy of NOMA, but still resist introducing discussions of ID in the classroom. They say a discussion of the the relevant issues would only confuse students. Teenagers are apparently too immature to understand the difference between a valid scientific theory and religiously motivated, anti-scientific prejudice. If that is true, then we should have very little hope for the future of American science education.
Some argue that America´s teachers are not qualified to address the issues raised by Intelligent Design. Either the subject is too complex and advanced, or it is too time-consuming to deal with in the public classroom.
I find this impossible to believe. For one thing, there is no need to get into the most complex or advanced discussions of evolutionary theory here. What is needed is a broad yet concise analysis of the main issues, with direction for further study. If the teachers are not qualified to give that to their students, then they are not qualified to teach biology. As for the issue of class time: What could be more worthy of time in the biology classroom than a proper presentation of that which grounds the entire field of study?
This question has particular relevance today. As reported in The Florida Times Union, Florida State Senator Stephen Wise has announced that he plans to introduce a new bill requiring that all teachers who teach about evolutionary theory also discuss intelligent design in the classroom.
In step with the National Science Education Standards, the Florida Board of Education requires that evolutionary theory be taught as the foundation of the biological sciences. Senator Wise says, "If you're going to teach evolution, then you have to teach the other side so you can have critical thinking."
Wise wrongly implies that Intelligent Design is a legitimate scientific alternative to evolutionary theory. His argument is flawed, but his conclusion remains appealing nonetheless. We do need more "discussion" and "critical thinking" in the science classroom; we just need to make sure that it is done properly.
If Wise´s proposed legislation goes through, it might eventually lead to a different piece of legislation, one requiring that all biology textbooks include a section in which the issue of Intelligent Design is adequately dealt with: that is, debunked according to scientific standards and theory.
The kind of legislation Wise is proposing will not end the tension between science and religion in America, nor will it cure America of its ignorance; but it might be a step in the right direction. It may even be a necessary step. Even more, there does not seem to be a good reason to challenge such legislation. There is the questionable argument for NOMA, on the one hand, and an argument for pessimism on the other--fear that teachers will not be able to do their jobs, and students will not be able to learn the material.
Rather than spend our political efforts trying to keep ID out of our public schools, let us instead fight to make science education stronger by explicitly debunking ID in the classroom. The alternative seems hopeless. If the scientific community continues to resist discussions of ID in the classroom, it will only add more fuel to the fire of ignorance and prejudice against scientific methodology.
A broader cultural dilemma is involved: how to resolve the tension between science and religion in America. This is a serious issue, and I do not think America´s scientists are responding to it properly. America´s most outspoken supporters of evolutionary theory believe their biggest enemies are people who try to wedge discussions of Intelligent Design (ID) into the science classroom. This is a mistake.
Despite what many people think, a discussion of Intelligent Design is relevant to a science education. To properly understand biology, our students must understand evolutionary theory; and to properly understand evolutionary theory—to counteract the forces of ignorance in American society—they must grapple with Intelligent Design.
Introducing a discussion of Intelligent Design in the science classroom will not threaten the sanctity of a science education; on the contrary, it will open up students' minds to the full weight of evolutionary theory, and so properly counter the ignorance plaguing American society. The war against ignorance in America is not going to be won by banning discussions of Intelligent Design from the public classroom. The war is going to be won after a sound debunking of Intelligent Design becomes a required, integral part of science education in America.
The real enemy here is NOMA ("Non-Overlapping Magisteria," a phrase coined by the late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould). NOMA is a political principle which says that science and religion must be kept at arms length at all times. Their respective domains, their "magisteria," do not overlap. Science develops experimental models of nature; religion deals with questions of ultimate value and meaning in life. The two are not related, and so must keep out of each other's business.
NOMA has its critics, such as popular science writer and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and philosopher Daniel C. Dennett. Indeed, NOMA has a rather serious built-in flaw: when scientific practice challenges religious doctrine, NOMA offers no means of resolving the disputes. (See, for example, the cultural debates over abortion and stem cell research). In practical terms, NOMA seems only to serve as religion's protective shield against scientific scrutiny.
Regardless of its practical and philosophical problems, many science educators embrace NOMA as a way of avoiding religion in their classrooms. NOMA absolves them of responsibility, allowing them to act as though Intelligent Design, as threatening as it is to America's understanding of science, is not relevant to their work.
When it comes to science education, a hands-off agreement with religion (or with religiously motivated ideas, such as Intelligent Design) is a recipe for disaster. NOMA is the biggest enemy in the war against ignorance, because it allows students' misconceptions about evolution to go unchallenged, thus providing a sanctuary for their mistrust of science in general and evolutionary theory in particular.
Some science educators recognize the political inadequacy of NOMA, but still resist introducing discussions of ID in the classroom. They say a discussion of the the relevant issues would only confuse students. Teenagers are apparently too immature to understand the difference between a valid scientific theory and religiously motivated, anti-scientific prejudice. If that is true, then we should have very little hope for the future of American science education.
Some argue that America´s teachers are not qualified to address the issues raised by Intelligent Design. Either the subject is too complex and advanced, or it is too time-consuming to deal with in the public classroom.
I find this impossible to believe. For one thing, there is no need to get into the most complex or advanced discussions of evolutionary theory here. What is needed is a broad yet concise analysis of the main issues, with direction for further study. If the teachers are not qualified to give that to their students, then they are not qualified to teach biology. As for the issue of class time: What could be more worthy of time in the biology classroom than a proper presentation of that which grounds the entire field of study?
This question has particular relevance today. As reported in The Florida Times Union, Florida State Senator Stephen Wise has announced that he plans to introduce a new bill requiring that all teachers who teach about evolutionary theory also discuss intelligent design in the classroom.
In step with the National Science Education Standards, the Florida Board of Education requires that evolutionary theory be taught as the foundation of the biological sciences. Senator Wise says, "If you're going to teach evolution, then you have to teach the other side so you can have critical thinking."
Wise wrongly implies that Intelligent Design is a legitimate scientific alternative to evolutionary theory. His argument is flawed, but his conclusion remains appealing nonetheless. We do need more "discussion" and "critical thinking" in the science classroom; we just need to make sure that it is done properly.
If Wise´s proposed legislation goes through, it might eventually lead to a different piece of legislation, one requiring that all biology textbooks include a section in which the issue of Intelligent Design is adequately dealt with: that is, debunked according to scientific standards and theory.
The kind of legislation Wise is proposing will not end the tension between science and religion in America, nor will it cure America of its ignorance; but it might be a step in the right direction. It may even be a necessary step. Even more, there does not seem to be a good reason to challenge such legislation. There is the questionable argument for NOMA, on the one hand, and an argument for pessimism on the other--fear that teachers will not be able to do their jobs, and students will not be able to learn the material.
Rather than spend our political efforts trying to keep ID out of our public schools, let us instead fight to make science education stronger by explicitly debunking ID in the classroom. The alternative seems hopeless. If the scientific community continues to resist discussions of ID in the classroom, it will only add more fuel to the fire of ignorance and prejudice against scientific methodology.