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.
I don't know what credence we ought to give to an argument about ID by someone who doesn't even know what it is (or purports to be). At the very least one ought to make an argument that discounts IDist explanations of what they want to show they're really only concerned about human origins.
There are no evolution textbooks in public schools. These are undergraduate or graduate classes in college.
Science textbooks, and biology textbooks in particular, used by public schools have so little science information in them that Americans learn almost no science.
Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.
This article starts with a flawed premise, which results in misguided assumptions, and concludes with the right answer. Interesting.
QUOTE: "We're fighting because the institution of public schooling forces us to, by permitting only one government-sanctioned explanation of human origins."
Rubbish.
The Intelligent Design argument is essentially: "the existence of this beautiful and complex watch mandates the existence of a watchmaker."
Fine.
Seriously! Fine. The only problem is, that there is no measurable, testable, repeatable proof that can establish the existing of our 'watchmaker', call him/her/it what you will.
That makes I.D. "not science". That's all.
I.D. is fine for theology, philosophy, comparative religious belief studies and the like, but it does not belong in a science curriculum. It's not science.
Stop hyperventilating and accept the fact that some things exist through faith, and faith is a fine and decent thing. It makes life bearable for many, and comforts many more.
Comparing faith in a Creator with the hypotheses of evolutionists... well, they just don't belong in the same room.
Trying to claim that introducing ID ammounts to dumbing down science standards is silly.
We've had this conversation before.
Really? You don't care whether science classes teach accepted science or not? You wouldn't care if, for example, astrology were taught alongside astronomy?
BTW, why are people bringing this into another evolution vs ID debate. Talk about the article which is about ending the political debate by ending the public education system. That should be something we all could agree on.
Except that career scientists are not protecting a collective "turf". Mostly they are competing as individuals. And what's the surest way to make a scientific career? To either introduce a new scientific theory or demolish an existing one!
Your point argues against you. If there was a valid case against evolution it would be taken up and prosecuted within the profession. You would not have what we have now with the focus almost entirely on secondary school curricula.
Which, as free market conservatives, is why we should be applauding their publishing efforts. One of the biggest ironies is that those most knowledgeable about ID's weaknesses are best positioned to exploit it. Instead of wasting their time debating an endless array of either (a) truly misinformed individiduals, or (b) cynically calculating profiteers, our in-house scientists could be negotiating some ghost writing deals.
I think I agree with you. I do think that those looking for exclusion of ID have made a tactical error which will result in less science education and not more.
The purity of science has been preserved at the expense of its public availabililty. The controversy would have attracted good study of science.
well it keeps the rain out...
Why fight?...because some people just have to be right, and want the world to know it.
So if we parade ID in our schools and pretend it qualifies as science, we're advancing education?
I think the ID controversy will be good in the long run because it will tweak scientists out of their lairs and get them back into the public arena.
I believe it's all part of God's plan for us.
I think you're right. (b)is exactly what will happen.
The difficulty for most scientists will be in trying to find a way to reach an audience that is increasingly ignorant of science and nature around them.
Look how excited the folks in LA were during the earthquakes when they lost electrical power and they could actually see stars in the sky. Sheesh!
"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?"
Because liberals abhor ideological nonconformity and are determined to create a society that does not countenance diverse thought. That's the whole point of controlling language and eradicating symbols.
Also we have a terribly designed lower back. What engineer starting with a clean sheet would have designed the human back so that we would be susceptible to herniated discs and other problems?
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.