A good friend of mine, who happens to be an ardent Christian Creationist, sent me an article back in late '05 about a statement that the Dover School Board in Dover, PA required science teachers to read to their students. The statement (see bolded paragraph below) cast official doubt on Evolution, while offering Creationism as a doubt-free alternative. A lawsuit and trial ensued, and the unconstitutionality of the statement was affirmed. Below, slightly updated (as it was written in late 2005) was my response to my friend.
(Incidentally, to read some of our recent debating points, please see Tom's blog at... http://tomwolff.blogspot.com)
Hi Tom,
My biggest objection to any school system teaching Intelligent Design in Biology classes, be it Dover, PA, Edina, MN or a Bible Belt town in Kansas, is that while Evolution is itself evolving as new evidence comes in on a monthly basis, and can be examined according to the Scientific Method (which is the best way I know of the to differentiate hard sciences like chem and biology, and soft sciences such as psychology, and theology), ID cannot be examined by any sort of direct evidence. The only evidence for ID seems to be observing indirect phenomonae, like the so-called "fine tuning" of the universe, or the seeming irreducibility of the cell, or "gaps" in the fossil record.
What it boils down to is that everywhere we say "Intelligent Design," we could just as easily say, "magic." Can't explain the Big Bang? It was magic! Can't explain the decay rate of hydrogen? It's magic! Can't find transitional species? All animals were made by magic. Since magic can explain literally anything, it is easy to say, "Look at my theory of magic! It explains ALL the gaps in that silly Evolution Theory. Therefore it is a more likely theory. We should expose childen learning science to the science of magic!" Now, we all know that magic has traditionally been the way that authorities explain that for which they have no explanation. They dress it up as "the Gods," or other superstitious myth, but the logic train seems to say, "We can't figure it out yet, therefore God did it!" Better leap to safety, because that train is jumping the tracks, as well as several logic steps that really need to be there for that argument to deserve any real merit.
Now, I wouldn't mind it so much if we could at least begin to gather and analyze data on HOW this Intelligent Design works. However, I am repeatedly told not only that the Creator's methods are beyond our understanding, but that it is wrong to even question how and why Creation works. Evolution is a scientific path because we learn things from our research into it. Our path to Creationism teaches us no hard facts of why things work, and so is a scientific dead end.
Another reason not to teach ID in public schools is that Intelligent Design = Creationism = Religion = Christianity. No matter what sophist arguments that Creationists use to deny the religious component of ID, the simple truth is that they cannot be seperated. Even Strobel comes right out and says in his "the Case For a Creator" that he favors the Christian God as the best fitting Creator to fill the shoes. Since Strobel is such a leading voice in the ID/Creationist movement, it is safe to expect this kind of non-objectivity from the majority of those hawking ID to our schools. When the question "How?" becomes the exact same as the question "Who?," you have a religious question, not a scientific one. I think that ANY time you involve the gods, you are creating a religious inquiry. So teach it in Theology 101, not in Biology 101...
My final thought on this is actually an observation and my analysis of what it might mean. The ID proponents say, why not teach both? Why not tell students to have an open mind? But the Dover case clearly shows the hidden agenda and hypocrisy of the ID camp. Look at the paragraph that the school board REQUIRED that each student hear:
"Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origins of life that differs from Darwin's views. The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origin of life to individual students and their families."
This statement is in no way objective. It is a clear attempt by the Creationist camp to plant doubt about Evolution while simultaneously influencing the student in favor of ID. The statement emphasizes the Evolution is "not a fact," but makes no similar disclaimer for ID. In fact, it says that Intelligent design is an explanation of the origins of life! Nowhere does it caution the reader that ID is also only a theory. By calling it an "explanation" and not a possible or theoretical explanation, it is trying to give ID the status of a fact, when it deserves no such recognition. The second to last sentence again throws doubt at anything labeled a theory, but again fails to include ID in that theoretical universe, which again plants the subtle idea that ID is not to be subjected to that same scrutiny.
The Dover School Board also issued a statement that the flaws and gaps of Evolution would be pointed out. This is fine, in and of itself, as such education provides a direction for future research. The problem is NO such laundering of ID/Creationism was to be offered.
