There has been alot of discussion about mentioning Intelligent Design theories when discussions about Evolution arise in our schools. Both Ruth (she provides some other blog links as well) and Phoenix have some good discussions going.
So, I say, let our children decide for themselves. Perhaps Intelligent Design can't be proven or disproven now. Perhaps Evolution is the real deal. But what does it hurt to expose our children to the entire debate? Can we not trust them to come to their own conclusions? If I had to sit through 4 weeks in a world history class listening to extended discourse on Islam in the 8th grade, including the 5 tenets of Islam, why can't today's students hear about the beliefs of some Christians as it relates to this issue? Learning about Islam didn't turn me into a Muslim. Being exposed to the idea of Intelligent Design isn't going to throw your child to the lions.What's the big deal? Can't we trust our kids to decide for themselves?
My dad trusted me, and I turned out okay.
I commented over on Ruth's place, and realized that I'd like to introduce this topic over here.
I am, in some ways, on the fence for this one. I've often pondered whether or not evolution and Intelligent Design (creation) could not, in some way, be intermingled. For example, who is to say what Adam looked like? We have formed pictures in our mind because of what we see in books. Ok, that is an oversimplification, but I think you get the idea.
My kids have gone to both private (not religious) and public schools. When we were in California, they attended private schools and both of them got to experience several different religions, and this was often done while studying a particular culture. They enjoyed it quite a bit.
Perhaps I'm naive, but I thoroughly approve I my children being exposed to different values and beliefs, even, as in this case, if it is in science class.
Tell me, can the scientists prove that a greater being did not have a hand in this?
Discuss.
Comments
I must admit I don't feel terribly strongly about this either way - it doesn't bother me. I tend to think the 'science' bit is arguing semantics.
Posted by: Ruth at September 29, 2005 09:01 PM
hI,
Just a note to let you know I was so delighted with your Wednesday cartoon that I copied it in my blog today; but I did give you credit for it and put in a link to your site.
You gave me such a good laugh that I just had to pass it on.
Posted by: john cowart at September 30, 2005 06:15 AM
My opinion is that anyone looking for absolute, unquestionable "proof" one way or the other is absolutely wasting their time. Intelligent Design is a matter of faith, which is another way of saying, "I can't prove it but I want to believe it anyway." Evolution theory is nothing more than quantum hyperbole wrapped around pure speculation based on our very limited understanding of interstellar physics, which will probably prove to be laughably wrong. We can stand and argue either side until we're blue in the face but in the end will have accomplished absolutely nothing.
So, which should we teach in school? Neither. We should not be afraid to say, "We really don't know for sure. We're looking, but we don't have any firm answers."
What the hell is wrong with that?
-G
Posted by: Garrison Steelle at September 30, 2005 10:11 AM
My issue with Intelligent Design is not that it doesn't make sense - I studied biochemistry, and if you want evidence of Intelligent Design you'll find plenty of it there - it's that Intelligent Design is a philosophical matter. It's an idea that cannot be proven scientifically, a belief.
Science is a process of making observations, deleloping hypotheses to explain those observations, developing theories to tie several hypotheses together and give them a logical framework, and conducting experiments to test the hypotheses. You don't really "prove" something in science, you just come up with the theory that does the best job of explaining what you observe.
It's wrong to conflate or confuse the two worlds of religion/philosophy and science. Not that both can't explain what we observe - it's that they have different ways of reaching conclusions. The first requires faith and little else; the second requires experimentation and intellectual rigor. They are different animals, and they belong in different cages in our Mental Zoo.
If you want to teach ID, it belongs in a Philosophy or Religion class. Evolution belongs in a science class - although it would also be a fit topic to discuss in the first two classes.
Evolution may very well be the tool that God uses to create the world - but that's something we can't demonstrate by experiment. It's a matter of faith.
Posted by: Elisson at September 30, 2005 11:11 AM
Oh, yes: and you can't prove a negative, in any event...
Posted by: Elisson at September 30, 2005 01:06 PM
Elisson makes a very god point. There is a place for every type of teaching. The reason we teach most of the things in school is because they are "fact" as we know them and are based on some scientific principle or historical documentation. There just isn't a good way to teach religion in school since most of it is actually based on faith.
DB
Posted by: D Brooks at October 1, 2005 05:02 PM
Well, I honestly don't have a problem with talking about Evlolution as a theory and explaining it that way. Students need to be taught in science classes what theories are, but bringing up a "nonscientific" idea, a theological idea as part of science class is part of my problem.
Why not include the Buddist views:
Buddhism rejects the idea of a single, special event being the beginning of all existence. The phrase "since beginningless time" is frequently used. The Big Bang may very well be the beginning of the current era in our local universe, but there is no reason to believe that it was anything other than just another link in the eternal chain of cause and effect. In summary, Buddhism rejects the whole idea of an identifiable origin of everything.
or a zen Phylosophy:
Everything and nothing are all interconnected, inseparable, a whole. Zen denies that the person is the first cause. If it speaks of origins at all, it says that the ground of being is the real first cause.
Posted by: Gina at October 1, 2005 09:23 PM
For me, there are too many coincidences for science to explain it all. Adament evolutionists will say there is absolutely no evidence to support intelligent design, but that's not true either. There are cases to support both causes. A circus of different ideas is good for our minds, but if we don't choose a certain path, the journey is just a circus.
Science cannot explain to me the emotion of love, nor can it tell me why I like staring at a beautiful sunset. I thank God for both every day.
Posted by: Texas T-bone at October 6, 2005 09:51 AM