Posted on 08/12/2005 4:56:11 PM PDT by gobucks
As intelligent design has become a household word, a few well-meaning but misguided public officials have conflated the theory of design with creationism or tried to impose it by legislation.
In Utah, a state senator recently advocated the adoption of what he calls "divine design." In Pennsylvania, the state legislature held hearings on a bill that would allow school districts to mandate the teaching of design.
These conflicting voices in the public arena claiming to speak for intelligent design have promoted serious misunderstandings about what the theory actually proposes and what its supporters really want.
The first misunderstanding is that intelligent design is based on religion rather than science. Design theory is a scientific inference based on empirical evidence, not religious texts. The theory proposes that some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause as opposed to an undirected process such as natural selection. Although controversial, design theory is supported by a growing number of scientists in scientific journals, conference proceedings, and books. While intelligent design may have religious implications (just like Darwin's theory), it does not start from religious premises.
A second misunderstanding is that proponents of intelligent design theory are crusading to have it required in public schools. In fact, they are doing the opposite. Discovery Institute, the main research organization supporting ID scholars, opposes efforts to mandate intelligent design. Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community.
A third misunderstanding is that there are widespread efforts to mandate the teaching of design. In reality, what most states are considering is not teaching design but teaching the weaknesses as well as the strengths of modern Darwinian theory. This is the approach adopted in the science standards of Ohio, Minnesota, and New Mexico. It's also the approach currently under consideration by the Kansas State Board of Education, which earlier this year heard testimony critical of Darwin's theory from professors of biology, genetics, and biochemistry.
While scholars supporting ID are not seeking to impose their views, opponents of ID have tried to silence critics of Darwin's theory using coercion and intimidation.
At George Mason University, a biology professor was banned recently from teaching about intelligent design in her classes. At the Smithsonian Institution, the editor of a biology journal says he faced discrimination and retaliation after accepting for publication a pro-ID article.
Supporters of intelligent design are willing to disavow misguided efforts to impose it by government fiat. Defenders of Darwinism likewise need to reject efforts to enforce their views by trampling on academic freedom.
The validity of intelligent design should be decided through fair and open debate, not through legislation enacted by its friends or witch hunts conducted by its foes.
John G. West is Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute and an Associate Professor of Political Science at Seattle Pacific University.
Ping
Nope. ID should be evaluated by the scientific method. It already has and was found lacking.
Ping : )
Sorry, but no matter how often the "IDers" try to claim that the creationists who push ID aren't "really" the ID movement, it just isn't going to fly.
The slow draw.
Horse manure, unless you want to mischaracterize well-deserved derision as "coercion", and raising questions about the bypassing of ordinary standards as "intimidation".
Like that's really gonna happen
So9
Darwin's theory is still just a theory and I don't think they should teach evolution or "intelligent design" aka creationism in school. That should be left to the parents to teach their children.
Personally, I resent government stepping into my shoes as a parent...even if I'm not the best parent in the world. At least I'm not going to brainwash my own children!
This is nonsense. There is NO empirical evidence for ID.
The theory proposes that some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause as opposed to an undirected process such as natural selection.
Why is it so hard to accept that the Creator was smart enough to let creation unfold via the "Big Bang" and natural selection? That infinite complexity can unfold from a few elegant basic principles?
Although controversial, design theory is supported by a growing number of scientists in scientific journals, conference proceedings, and books.
Hey, so is alien abduction! But what evidence?
While intelligent design may have religious implications (just like Darwin's theory), it does not start from religious premises.
That's just dishonest. ID is a way to give "creationism" some patina of legitimacy. This insistence on demoting Sacred Scripture from divine spiritual guidance to tacky science text is ludicrous. Any real science has no religous implications. Real faith is not shaken or altered because one's view of the physical world changes with new data.
ID is the axiom under which science has taken place for all but the past 150 years. From that time it has sagged under the burden of evolutionism. It still carries on, the wacky "flapdoodle" of unscientific philosophies and histories notwithstanding, but would do better if it kept its nose to the grindstone.
If ID isn't creationism then what designed the intelligent designers?
No design involving "intelligent design" proponents could be called intelligent.
I found this sentence the most interesting:
While intelligent design may have religious implications (just like Darwin's theory), it does not start from religious premises.
I don't find it irrelevant if the question demonstrates the invalidity of the concept of intelligent design, which I believe it does. If life on earth was designed intelligently, what designed the designer? the "theory" of ID simply escalates the question without answering anything unless it is simply veiled creationism, which I believe it is. My question demonstrates that and so is hardly irrelevant.
It seems to me that GOD being GOD can run his creation along any lines that HE chooses. What we mortals elect to call it is in fact basically meaningless.
Yeah, let's throw out everything that's "just a theory", like germ theory, for example. Or, for balance, lets give "evil spirits make you sick theory" equal time.
Very true.
Although I do like to give Him the credit He deserves by calling it His creation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.