Time to Decide: Intelligent Design (ID)
Paul Gay
January 25, 2006
The debate over Intelligent Design (ID), appears to have no end in sight, meanwhile school districts continue to look at the possibility of teaching it in the classroom. Most conclude that the inevitable, law suit arguing for the continued, "separation of church and state," will occur if any attempt is made to add it to the curriculum.
For people new to the concept; Intelligent Design (ID) is the belief that certain aspects of biological life are too complicated to have started randomly on their own.
Is life really too complex to have begun on it's own? If the answer is yes, the next logical question is, how do we study the possibility? Let's set religious preconceptions aside for a moment and use simple logic. What scientific methods can be utilized to shed light on ID? The unfortunate reality is that there no current methods. The best we can do is to look at statistical probabilities. So how can we determine if something is too complex to happen naturally? Should we make this determination even though science yet to figure out how life began? Can we reliably calculate the odds of such an occurrence, (which has been repeatedly attempted by scientists and mathematicians), when we lack the ability to duplicate the starting process in the first place? This cart-before-the-horse mentality bares little fruit when looked at logically. We do have several methods to investigate the mechanisms of life and it's almost limitless complexities. To the credit of the scientific community, they have established several methods to study evolutionary theory, however many of these methods generate lingering questions about it's accuracy. Macro-evolution is a prime example. Can a tiger eventually turn into a goat? Can millions of evolutionary years possibly cause such a dramatic transformation? Not a single case has ever been documented. The argument over fossil record interpretations withstanding, macro-evolution contains holes large enough to drive a bus through. ID proponents have been questioning the likelihood of evolution for years and rightly so. It contains obvious problems and many unanswered questions. ID proponents use current gaps in evolutionary theory in an attempt to gain support for ID, but is this a good idea? Should showing the negative aspects surrounding evolutionary theory have any bearing on the authenticity of ID? Such a tactic has successfully cast doubt on parts of evolutionary theory. This tactic is actually good for research largely because it keeps the scientific community searching for better answers. However simply stating that one scientific theory is inaccurate, therefore another must be correct by default, is illogical. If ID is to be taken seriously, it must stand on it's own verifiable merits.
If life appears simplistic enough to have begun on it's own, viable scientific methods should be used to study how. Science has been doing just that for several decades in areas such as chemistry and biotechnology. Yet science still has failed to figure out how life began. It has no answer for how something so extraordinarily complicated as life, emerged from non-living material. The harder science looks, the more complex it appears. The sad truth is that the mystery of life's origins is alive and well. Has science failed us? If you are willing to formulate your opinion only on what is currently known, then yes. However science continues to trudge along at it's own speed. It is not always accurate or truthful, no doubt because the human element, primarily egos sometimes gets in the way. Yet science does have one extraordinarily positive trait that makes it all worth while, it is self-correcting. Sometimes it takes years to realize that a theory or concept is wrong, however once shown, science will correct it's position and move foreword. No, science has not failed us. Science is simply doing what science does, observing and learning how the natural universe works. It does not, and simply cannot deal with the metaphysical. Science seeks answers to previously unknown questions in the natural universe. To investigate a phenomena and conclude the only possible answer is, "because the designer made it that way," does nothing to help answer the how's and whys.
Is Intelligent Design a theory? Dr. Behe, one of more notable proponents of ID, recently testified at the Dover, Pa. trial that it did not meet the scientific criteria of a theory. While the concept is fascinating, it seems the evidence is not yet forthcoming. The largest obstacle appears to be finding acceptable scientific methods to study the idea.
Should ID be taught in the classroom? While many argue the constitutional intent surrounding this, it seems that common sense should be the deciding factor. The primary question should not be whether ID should be taught in the classroom, but should it be taught in the science classroom? Simply put, if it's not science, don't teach it in a science classroom. If it is science, then add it to the curriculum. Our children are perfectly capable of handling this issue, despite the fears of parents. It's important to note that we don't routinely teach mathematics in English class, nor do we teach physical education in history class. So what should we do with it?
It's time for the leaders in education to look at the data and decide once and for all where ID stands. Far too much time, money and educational recourses are being squandered in the courts, defending one side or the other. Let's save our tax-payer's dollars for something more important, like educating our kids rather then handing it over to lawyers. It's a simple concept, if ID is not a metaphysical concept then decide if it is scientific. If so, teach it. If it is determined to be metaphysical, then leave it to the clergy. If it needs a home in our schools, then it's time let the experts decide. Many parents will argue that they know what is best for their children. While it's hard to disagree with that, most parents simply are not equipped to make this decision, due primarily to a lack of training, knowledge and expertise. Professional, well-trained educators should be held accountable to make this decision. That's what we pay them for. Like it or not, these people are much better equipped evaluate ID. The Federal government, the US Department of Education in particular, should study and make a decision regarding ID for the whole nation. Keeping personal religious beliefs from entering into the outcome will no doubt be difficult. The rule of thumb for educators should be to base their decision on available and factual data only. It's possible that this decision may get overturned based on new data in the future. However it seems logical to use the current data we do have and let the experts act on it.
For people new to the concept; Intelligent Design (ID) is the belief that certain aspects of biological life are too complicated to have started randomly on their own.
Is life really too complex to have begun on it's own? If the answer is yes, the next logical question is, how do we study the possibility? Let's set religious preconceptions aside for a moment and use simple logic. What scientific methods can be utilized to shed light on ID? The unfortunate reality is that there no current methods. The best we can do is to look at statistical probabilities. So how can we determine if something is too complex to happen naturally? Should we make this determination even though science yet to figure out how life began? Can we reliably calculate the odds of such an occurrence, (which has been repeatedly attempted by scientists and mathematicians), when we lack the ability to duplicate the starting process in the first place? This cart-before-the-horse mentality bares little fruit when looked at logically. We do have several methods to investigate the mechanisms of life and it's almost limitless complexities. To the credit of the scientific community, they have established several methods to study evolutionary theory, however many of these methods generate lingering questions about it's accuracy. Macro-evolution is a prime example. Can a tiger eventually turn into a goat? Can millions of evolutionary years possibly cause such a dramatic transformation? Not a single case has ever been documented. The argument over fossil record interpretations withstanding, macro-evolution contains holes large enough to drive a bus through. ID proponents have been questioning the likelihood of evolution for years and rightly so. It contains obvious problems and many unanswered questions. ID proponents use current gaps in evolutionary theory in an attempt to gain support for ID, but is this a good idea? Should showing the negative aspects surrounding evolutionary theory have any bearing on the authenticity of ID? Such a tactic has successfully cast doubt on parts of evolutionary theory. This tactic is actually good for research largely because it keeps the scientific community searching for better answers. However simply stating that one scientific theory is inaccurate, therefore another must be correct by default, is illogical. If ID is to be taken seriously, it must stand on it's own verifiable merits.
If life appears simplistic enough to have begun on it's own, viable scientific methods should be used to study how. Science has been doing just that for several decades in areas such as chemistry and biotechnology. Yet science still has failed to figure out how life began. It has no answer for how something so extraordinarily complicated as life, emerged from non-living material. The harder science looks, the more complex it appears. The sad truth is that the mystery of life's origins is alive and well. Has science failed us? If you are willing to formulate your opinion only on what is currently known, then yes. However science continues to trudge along at it's own speed. It is not always accurate or truthful, no doubt because the human element, primarily egos sometimes gets in the way. Yet science does have one extraordinarily positive trait that makes it all worth while, it is self-correcting. Sometimes it takes years to realize that a theory or concept is wrong, however once shown, science will correct it's position and move foreword. No, science has not failed us. Science is simply doing what science does, observing and learning how the natural universe works. It does not, and simply cannot deal with the metaphysical. Science seeks answers to previously unknown questions in the natural universe. To investigate a phenomena and conclude the only possible answer is, "because the designer made it that way," does nothing to help answer the how's and whys.
Is Intelligent Design a theory? Dr. Behe, one of more notable proponents of ID, recently testified at the Dover, Pa. trial that it did not meet the scientific criteria of a theory. While the concept is fascinating, it seems the evidence is not yet forthcoming. The largest obstacle appears to be finding acceptable scientific methods to study the idea.
Should ID be taught in the classroom? While many argue the constitutional intent surrounding this, it seems that common sense should be the deciding factor. The primary question should not be whether ID should be taught in the classroom, but should it be taught in the science classroom? Simply put, if it's not science, don't teach it in a science classroom. If it is science, then add it to the curriculum. Our children are perfectly capable of handling this issue, despite the fears of parents. It's important to note that we don't routinely teach mathematics in English class, nor do we teach physical education in history class. So what should we do with it?
It's time for the leaders in education to look at the data and decide once and for all where ID stands. Far too much time, money and educational recourses are being squandered in the courts, defending one side or the other. Let's save our tax-payer's dollars for something more important, like educating our kids rather then handing it over to lawyers. It's a simple concept, if ID is not a metaphysical concept then decide if it is scientific. If so, teach it. If it is determined to be metaphysical, then leave it to the clergy. If it needs a home in our schools, then it's time let the experts decide. Many parents will argue that they know what is best for their children. While it's hard to disagree with that, most parents simply are not equipped to make this decision, due primarily to a lack of training, knowledge and expertise. Professional, well-trained educators should be held accountable to make this decision. That's what we pay them for. Like it or not, these people are much better equipped evaluate ID. The Federal government, the US Department of Education in particular, should study and make a decision regarding ID for the whole nation. Keeping personal religious beliefs from entering into the outcome will no doubt be difficult. The rule of thumb for educators should be to base their decision on available and factual data only. It's possible that this decision may get overturned based on new data in the future. However it seems logical to use the current data we do have and let the experts act on it.
Print
Email
