Circumspection Should Not Be Controversial
The holidays and other things have prevented me from blogging recently, but others have been active. The Evolution News blog noted this critique of the Dover decision from the Arizona Republic, which is worth a look. Some excerpts (my emphasis in bold):
In the course of a desultory opinion, [Judge Jones] found that there was no difference between creationism and intelligent design. Moreover, based upon the extensive expertise he professes to have acquired in the course of a six-week trial, he defined science and determined that the scientific claims of intelligent design were invalid, neither of which are exactly legal questions best decided by a single lawyer.
Jones actually ruled on the nature of theology as well. He determined that evolution "in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator." That's not necessarily so. Much of evolutionary teaching contends that life on Earth is the accidental and unplanned result of exclusively natural processes. That precludes life on Earth being the willed outcome of a Creator.
Although both intelligent design and creationism posit the existence of a Creator, their scientific and public policy positions are radically different. Creationism holds that God created the Earth and life on it pretty much as it presently exists only about 6,000 years ago.
Intelligent design accepts that the Earth and life are billions of years old, and that life has evolved through adaptation, mutation and natural selection. It even accepts some degree of common ancestry among species.
It simply finds the claim that all life evolved from a single organism not to best fit the available evidence.
Far from wanting to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools, the ID movement advocates that it be taught. Moreover, it does not support the mandatory teaching of intelligent design as an alternative. Instead, it wants a more circumspect presentation of evolutionary theory as well as acknowledgement of its scientific critiques.
Those critiques, such as that some of life exhibits irreducible complexity that cannot be explained by evolution, are fiercely rebutted by evolutionists. But the notion of circumspection shouldn't be controversial.
It is estimated that far fewer than one-tenth of 1 percent of living organisms become fossilized. Evolutionists have sharp disputes among themselves about the particulars of even the humanoid branch of the tree of life, much less the continuum going back billions of years to the purported single organism that started it all.
. . .
Perhaps one day scientists will create life in a lab and fossils, despite their paucity, will reveal a fuller and less contentious tree of life.
At present, however, what is unknown about the history of life remains vast and important.
Surely there's a way for that reality to be reflected in classrooms without violating the integrity of scientific inquiry or the freedom of conscience for believers and non-believers alike.
posted by Lawrence Selden @ 5:50 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
This post raises a few issues for me, which might help highlight why so many people have a problem with ID even though it is not exactly creationism.
Let me tell you a story, then ask you a question.
When I was taught science in school, there was an elegant ‘history of the universe’ that went something like this (the one paragraph version):
Big Bang; atoms form; first stars form; galaxies form; around this point the Sun and the Solar System form; life begins on Earth; life on Earth evolves...etc to present day.
If evolution is incorrect, that means the last couple of items on the ‘history of the universe’ get changed, so might read something like this:
Big Bang; atoms form; first stars form; galaxies form; around here the Sun and the Solar System form; an Intelligent Designer puts a menagerie of animal and plant life on Earth, which we see here in the present day.
When did this Designer work? When were the first cells put on the Earth?
Or is the entire ‘history of the universe’ model incorrect, and we should instead turn to, say, 6 day of creation (Genesis)?
ID points out problems with evolution, but only goes part way to a solution. ID says that life is from a designer, but it stops there and doesn’t answer the other questions:
When did the Designer do this? Do observations from other science disciplines, like astronomy and theories in physics, support the ID hypothesis?
That’s the story, now here’s the question: in ID theory, what is the new model for ‘the history of the universe’?
More to the point, what do you see as the model of the history of the universe?
Cheers,
SME
Sean,
Scientifically, I do not know the answers to some of your questions. That is one of the main points of this blog: we do not know as much scientifically as many scientists believe, and that admission is a step forward. Dogmatic insistence on a theory without taking into consideration all the evidence is a bad thing, I believe. ID helps point that out.
You claimed that your post would help "highlight why so many people have a problem with ID even though it is not exactly creationism." How do you think it does that?
Lawrence
Hi Lawrence,
Actually, by "this post" I was referring to your post.
Specifically, how ID isn't creationism, and yet there are people who won't have a bar of it.
From the post:
Intelligent design accepts that the Earth and life are billions of years old, and that life has evolved through adaptation, mutation and natural selection. It even accepts some degree of common ancestry among species...It simply finds the claim that all life evolved from a single organism not to best fit the available evidence.
Hence my question about the model of the history of the universe.
For instance, is the history of the universe:
Big Bang; atoms form; first stars form; galaxies form; around here the Sun and the Solar System form; an Intelligent Designer puts a menagerie of animal and plant life on Earth, which we see here in the present day.
From the stand point of a teacher: on one hand you could teach the controversy and talk about ID, a theory that has no publications, and a history of the universe that relies on Deus ex Machina. On the other hand, teach evolution, as it refutes the points that ID presents.
As a teacher, I would wait until the scientific community sort it out, rather than teach a theory that the majority of the scientific community doesn't accept.
(And also as a teacher, I would do a few classes in History and Philosophy of Science that does the circumspection bit without ID.)
But more specifically, I was interested in what you think. What form is this Intelligent Designer? I don't think you would wholly accept ID without having a theory or two about who is the designer, and where they fit in the history of the universe.
Garbled reply, I know, but I hope you can decipher me!
Post a Comment
<< Home