Posted on 12/06/2005 11:55:32 AM PST by MRMEAN
Andrew J. Coulson is director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute.
Supporters of the theory of human origins known as "intelligent design" want it taught alongside the theory of evolution. Opponents will do anything to keep it out of science classrooms. The disagreement is clear.
But why does everyone assume that we must settle it through an ideological death-match in the town square?
Intelligent design contends that life on Earth is too complex to have evolved naturally, and so must be the product of an unspecified intelligent designer. Most adherents of this idea would undoubtedly be happy just to have it taught to their own children, and most of my fellow evolutionists presumably believe they should have that right. So why are we fighting?
We're fighting because the institution of public schooling forces us to, by permitting only one government-sanctioned explanation of human origins. The only way for one side to have its views reflected in the official curriculum is at the expense of the other side.
This manufactured conflict serves no public good. After all, does it really matter if some Americans believe intelligent design is a valid scientific theory while others see it as a Lamb of God in sheep's clothing? Surely not. While there are certainly issues on which consensus is key — respect for the rule of law and the rights of fellow citizens, tolerance of differing viewpoints, etc. — the origin of species is not one of them.
The sad truth is that state-run schooling has created a multitude of similarly pointless battles. Nothing is gained, for instance, by compelling conformity on school prayer, random drug testing, the set of religious holidays that are worth observing, or the most appropriate forms of sex education.
Not only are these conflicts unnecessary, they are socially corrosive. Every time we fight over the official government curriculum, it breeds more resentment and animosity within our communities. These public-schooling-induced battles have done much to inflame tensions between Red and Blue America.
But while Americans bicker incessantly over pedagogical teachings, we seldom fight over theological ones. The difference, of course, is that the Bill of Rights precludes the establishment of an official religion. Our founding fathers were prescient in calling for the separation of church and state, but failed to foresee the dire social consequences of entangling education and state. Those consequences are now all too apparent.
Fortunately, there is a way to end the cycle of educational violence: parental choice. Why not reorganize our schools so that parents can easily get the sort of education they value for their own children without having to force it on their neighbors?
Doing so would not be difficult. A combination of tax relief for middle income families and financial assistance for low-income families would give everyone access to the independent education marketplace. A few strokes of the legislative pen could thus bring peace along the entire "education front" of America's culture war.
But let's be honest. At least a few Americans see our recurrent battles over the government curriculum as a price worth paying. Even in the "land of the free," there is a temptation to seize the apparatus of state schooling and use it to proselytize our neighbors with our own ideas or beliefs.
In addition to being socially divisive and utterly incompatible with American ideals, such propagandizing is also ineffectual. After generations in which evolution has been public schooling's sole explanation of human origins, only a third of Americans consider it a theory well-supported by scientific evidence. By contrast, 51 percent of Americans believe "God created human beings in their present form."
These findings should give pause not only to evolutionists but to supporters of intelligent design as well. After all, if public schooling has made such a hash of teaching evolution, why expect it to do any better with I.D.?
Admittedly, the promotion of social harmony is an unusual justification for replacing public schools with parent-driven education markets. Most arguments for parental choice rest on the private sector's superior academic performance or cost-effectiveness. But when you stop and think about it, doesn't the combination of these advantages suggest that free markets would be a far more intelligent design for American education?
This article appeared on FOXNews.com on November 18, 2005.
"there is no measurable, testable, repeatable proof that can establish the existing of our 'watchmaker'"
Now even Darwin knows the truth. In a hundred years, your perspective will have changed also.
It happens all the time.
So, the fact that we think LIFE is more important than what ever the Lib/Con fight is about, upsets you how?
It means that you cannot be depended on to vote republican. Single-issue supporters are fickle, at best. There is a hard-core liberal democrat in our state legislature that keeps getting elected in a republican district because he opposes abortion. It doesn't matter if his republican opponent takes the same stand. He has a proven track record, and the anti-abortion crowd will not vote against him.
You want it taught that ID is a legitimate scientific alternative to evolution. You want it taught that there is a controversy amongst biologists about evolution as a good explanation for the history and diversity of life. To judge from the comments I see here, many want it taught that evolution isn't even scientific or that science should not limit itself to naturalistic explanations. Some even appear to hold both positions, which I find curious.
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
Stephen Crane (1871-1900)
Projection?
Then why do you insist that evolution be the only method of existence to be taught?
When you are in hell, look up. That will be me standing next to God.
I guess you've been told.
While I find evolution in almost everything, I find that some kind of design or consistency in the laws of substance are also necessary for those who do science. What good would the law of gravity do, or Snell's law do, if the nature of mass and light were evolving?
The fact that you strain on a gnat while swallowing a whale tells me that you are so dedicated to making sure that your personal BELIEFS are impressed on everyone cloud your judgement to the facts that evolution CANNOT and WILL NOT ever be proven. If you had half as much belief in God as you do evolution, we would not be having this discussion.
Too late. I already called shotgun.
Says who? Why do you assume that what you see is necessarily "natural" as opposed to an abberation?
Redwoods don't die and make room for their descendants. Well, maybe after 2500 years or so the odds that fire or something eventually gets them catches up to them.
Why do we grow stronger for 30 years only to reverse course and die?
"Is death of the soul also natural and expected? It is a good thing"
Not at all. The soul according to it's creator was designed immortal. Only after it chose evil was it condemned to die.
"If the soul is different (because it is devive andnot a part of profane nature)then using death of the body as an allegory is inappropriate. "
The soul that sins adopts a profane nature which our ancestors did and which we do likewise so it is not inappropriate. And as a model or image, that difference wouldn't be inappropriate anyway. For example, model cars aren't made out of materials of the same quality as real cars, but nevertheless they are instructive.
"It is anyway as the death of the body results from factors not of our control while the death of the soul (in your construct) is a result of our choices. "
There is that difference. But without a physical death that we can see and comprehend, would we even contemplate death of the soul?
"Still, it would be nice to have gills......"
It'd be nicer to have immortality, perfect immunity, with gills, wings, eagle eye vision, the speed of a cougar, the ability to spit poison on our enemies and fire bombadier beetle blasts out our butt. But that we don't simply can't be construed as evidence of Unintelligent design.
While I agree there must be some level of consistency and patterns for science (and irrespective of science, who would deny that our reality is consistent?), I don't agree with your point above. In the first place I don't see how this is fundamentally different from our evolving understanding of the nature of mass and light. In the second, a scientific theory can be a good approximation even if the underlying reality is changing.
Fun side note: I read a book awhile back called Blood Music (I think it was Greg Bear). IIRC, one of the themes in the end of the book is that the nature of reality is changed when a new physical theory is constructed so long as the theory is consistent with what has come before. This is a sort of meta-version of the idea that consciousness creates reality (I guess the pomo version is that reality is socially constructed).
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.