Posted on 11/10/2005 8:00:58 PM PST by Mr. Silverback
Currently the question of teaching intelligent design theory is under dispute in Pennsylvania, where a group of parents are suing a school district over its requirement that students read a statement describing evolution as a mere “theory” that has not been proven. The parents maintain that the statement is an example of teaching religion in the public schools. The school district maintains they are simply acknowledging scientifically valid criticisms of current evolutionary thinking, and that they are teaching their students important critical thinking skills. The ID area (an area of science, philosophy or flim-flam artistry, depending on who you ask) has been mainly advanced over the last ten years following the publication of “Darwin’s Black Box” by biochemist Michael Behe.
That word, “theory,” is a big part of the problem. Many of those in favor of teaching intelligent design (especially non-scientists) use the word as a synonym for “speculation” or “hypothesis,” much in the same way that Creationists do. “Evolution is just a theory,” they will say. For their part, many opponents of teaching it (especially non-scientists) use the word as a synonym for “law,” or “proven facts.” They will point to ironclad theories like atomic theory or the theory of relativity as examples and make accusations of ignorance, bias or trickery against those who see evolution as anything but a proven fact on the level of gravity or germ theory.
The problem with this is that a theory is not a guess or a fact, but a system or a model. It is a way of looking at phenomena, and sometimes it is new and relatively speculative and flawed, and other times it is well-proven and factual. The word “theory” is like the word “automobile.” Both the Edsel and the Corvette are a type of system described by the word “automobile,” but one was a disaster and the other is a revered classic. What we have is one group of people saying “Automobiles are Edsels” and another saying “Automobiles are Corvettes.” Most of the scientists seem to realize that neither statement is true; most of the people arguing on the talking head shows and on the editorial pages seem to be missing it.
Astronomy gives us a number of examples of scientific Edsels. Take for example the model of the Universe put forth by the 2nd Century astronomer Ptolemy. He had the Earth at the center of the Universe, with the stars on a rotating globe that surrounded the solar system. In his theory, the planets not only rotated around the Earth, but also circled around in a smaller orbit called an epicycle. Ptolemy’s model even fit the available data: The epicycles explained the retrograde motion of the planets, a phenomenon no one had properly explained before.
Of course, we know Ptolemy was way off. But we also know that his model was a theory, and that the correct model that replaced it was also a theory.
Today we have a group of scientists, a small group to be sure, who believe that the complexity of life is far too great at the biochemical level to be explained by evolution. Specifically, they believe that certain structures and processes such as the process of blood clotting are “irreducibly complex” and since there was no simpler form for them to evolve from, they must have been designed as they were. It could be they’ve honestly found proof of a higher intelligence. It could be they’re honestly describing the biochemical version of epicycles.
Many opponents of discussing these theories in public schools believe that this is not merely an incorrect theory, but a plot by a cabal of religion-driven pseudoscientists, “creationism dressed up in a cheap tuxedo,” as one recently said. They believe that the intelligent design crowd is dishonestly pretending to start from the scientific end of the question so that they can eventually indoctrinate all children with certain religious views.
They may be right about Intelligent design being invalid, and it’s not as if scientists have been running to hide under their desks; many have taken Behe on. But they could be wrong. Like the scholars who believed in the Ptolemic model and the steady state Universe and spontaneous generation and a hundred other theories that fell apart under new facts, they may be riding in an Edsel. And I hate to burst your bubble if you feel evolution is an unassailable fact, but its not as if all those scholars were sitting around thinking, “Oh, woe is me, if only I could exchange this mere hypothesis for the real hard facts!” No, these guys thought they had a “real good bead on things” until the new data showed up and changed their world.
Additionally the reactionary flavor of the objections grows stranger as the discussion goes on. The idea is that discussing these apparent flaws in evolution will leave students unable to process scientific data properly. If half of the bad things they have to say about intelligent design are true, this would be as converting all the kids in a school to Bhuddism by putting “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” in the school library. If intelligent design is really nothing more than pseudoscience, then any competent science instructor should be able to take it apart at the seams in front of his or her students, or at least show them why its religion and not science. Indeed, their claim is that all the facts and logic are on their side, yet the introduction of the intelligent design questions will poison the well, and overwhelm all of that. Anyone can see it’s a crock, except students learning science from a qualified instructor discussing theories proven beyond doubt. That hypothesis seems shaky at best.
I believe intelligent design is valid and deserves discussion, but I respect those who honestly think it’s a bad conclusion. What I have no respect for is the paranoia that non-scientist activists have spouted, treating valid scientific questioning as part of the Vast Right Wing Evangelical Effort to Dominate the World. For those who share or propagate those baseless fears, I have a suggestion for their next move if they manage to defeat intelligent design. They should act to stop teaching children that anyone ever thought the Earth was flat. It might give some of the little dears the wrong idea, and the next thing you know they’ll be using the dissection scalpels to sacrifice virgins to Quetzalcoatl on top of the lab benches.
Silverback's column ping!
If anyone wants on or off my monthly column ping list, please notify me here or by freepmail. These may become weekly columns in the future.
Thank you!
"Very intelligent."
By Design, no doubt!
:~)
Wow. A year ago you were entertaining me with zippy captions on hairy-pitted protesterettes and giant puppeteers. Now this. Rock on, Mr. Silverback!
"the next thing you know they’ll be using the dissection scalpels to sacrifice virgins to Quetzalcoatl on top of the lab benches."
As opposed, perhaps, to using--on young non-virgin females who have been raped-by-proxy by NARAL--those scalpels and vacuums to suck out the brains of inconvenient, unborn children....
And boy I wish I could get back in the Caption-A-Rama saddle, but I just can't seem to find the time these days.
Thanks - will read this tomorrow when my eyes have enough energy to co-ordinate their functioning with each other.
Is Freeport Ink online?
You need to do a Caption-a-rama for them sometime. Blow their minds.
You make me proud to be an Illinois Freeper (regardless of Dick Durbin). Can't wait to read next weeks.
-aragona
Well put, sir.
I agree with your point about 'theory' being used in its colloquial sense by the ID'ers, when they [we] refer to oursleves as 'theorists'.
I will drop 'theorists' the moment the string 'theorists' in cosmology drop it in favor of 'string hypothesizers'.
Brian;)
Hmmmm...Montezuma would have loved Planned Parenthood, though he would have wondered why PP just scars their hearts instead of ripping them all the way out.
No. They're well established, but have just never felt the need. That may change now that the Liberty Group owns them, but we'll see.
Thank you!
Thank you. And you make a good point about string theory.
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.