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.
Some scientists prefer to hide out with their books and research. We get to ignore much of the world. Not sure why I hang out on these threads--kind of addicting really.
This makes sense to me.
Many don't understand that once you make relativism acceptable, if not the norm, many will see science as something to be manipulated for their chosen end, which will then make many others cynical about science.
Don't be ______. You conspiracy theorists make me laugh. Do you seriously think those PhDs that currently support evolution are too stupid to make money using a different theory?
On the contrary, for ID to be considered science, the definition must be re-written so far as to be meaningless.
Perhaps you're unaware that the foremost proponent of ID admitted on the stand that his definition of "science" also encompasses Astrology?
I've learned a lot of biology on these threads over the past 5 years or so.
And I've met lots of wonderful people (cyber-met?).
;)
Evem though the author comes from those dirty atheist libertarians at the Cato Institute? :)
I agree with Cato on most things. Not all libertarians are atheists. Or even dirty. :-)
I like this idea.
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?
Could be that the so called creator was a democrat.
I guess our noses could have been designed upturned so we could catch bird droppings with them. Is that what you would prefer?
One of the primary theorems is that living things started out as mere self replicating amino acids and through an extremely long process of total random accidents that cannot be explained, became single celled organisms, then multi-celled organism, then eventually human beings.
Also, we are supposed to believe that evolution went from self replicating amino acids to trillions and trillions of extremely specialized cells working together in the mere blink of 4.5 billion years. How many changes must one undertake to complete the transformation from amoeba-like blob to human being? A million? Probably more like a billion or even much more.
So, which is it? Did it happen slowly and gradually or suddenly in bursts as must happen?
No matter what you say, evolution is a belief system whose theories CANNOT be tested.
Could be that the so called creator was a democrat.
Probably stopped for a union break at a critical time (seniority, you know).
I suspect that statement would be rather contentious over there on the anti-E side of the aisle, which makes it quite refreshing to hear. Not to put too fine of a point on it, but if you listened to some folks, you'd swear that Cato was chaired by Anton LaVey :)
Re faith v. reason, I just finished `Aristotle's Children', by Richard Rubenstein, Harcourt 2003. Good read.
An interesting point, people eventually got so tired of being asking to accept things on faith--"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." Twain--that they decided to take the Bible literally. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Aristotle thought the sun revolved around the earth.
Other than that, as the sub-title says: Christians, Muslims and Jews rediscovered ancient wisdom and illuminated the dark ages.
Faith and reason can be reconciled, I think.
That is so we can talk. It is a compromise: talk or choke.
Most pHD's are working in colleges and universities and make relatively low wages. And most pHD's in colleges and universities are extremely liberal.
Is it worse that parading bananas and condoms and teaching "safe sex and pretending that it is helping curb problems of teen sex and pregnancy?
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.