Sunday 12 September 2010

There's nothing ethical about intelligent design

Simply put, the word 'evolution' means development. However, the word also provokes discussion in the religious, political, social and scientific field.

Personally, I'm more concerned with the scientific perspective regarding species evolution but I can respect the fact that this vantage point does not exist in a vaccuum.  Science, politics, society and religion are heavily entangled whether we like it or not.

The scientific form of evolution builds on Darwinian theory.  Despite the heuristic and informative value of what Darwin posited, there are still areas in even the developed world where the scientific evidence of what man originated from is as unbelievable to individuals living in the year 2010 as it was to the majority in the late 1880's.   The main instigator of this disbelief is, ironically, the belief in God and religious faith.  As a result, 'intelligent design' is regarded as an appropriate 'alternative theory' to teach children in schools.

Schools in the 'red states' of America are the most common examples of areas where 'intelligent design' is taught to be a legitimate theory that, as the Texan-based Foundation for Thought & Ethics puts it: "fills in the gaps of Darwin's theory."  Unsurprisingly, the FTE is a Christian organisation that specialises in providing schools with textbooks on, among other things: intelligent design, abstinence and Christian nationalism1.  They infamously participated in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court case back in 20052.  (The case is fantastically portrayed in Judgement Day: Intelligent Design On Trial - definately worth a watch!)

The case revolved around the small American town of Dover where the local high school's board members took issue with how the origin of life was taught in biology classes.  They insisted that their children should not be 'force-fed evolution as being the gospel' and it should be clearly outlined that 'Darwin's theory was just a theory - not proven fact.'  Shockingly enough, the school relented and the students were taught Darwinian theory along with intelligent design theory; with intelligent design being given a positive bias.  It was not long before parents began to realise that 'intelligent design' alluded to a creator and thus has deep religious connotations.  Intelligent design was creationism and the teachings of Genesis.  This led to a court battle which the parents (thankfully) won.

The first striking fact of this case is the fact that it took place in 2005.  Then again, it is perhaps naive to assume that all individuals living in the twenty-first century have progressed to the same stage or to assume that ignorance has been completely obliterated in our very seemingly advanced world.  Most likely, it's the optimist in me being shot down.

The other thing about this case is the ethical implications it raises. During a quick skim-read of the FTE's legal guidebook regarding intelligent design in the public school curriculum, one finds that the organisation "seeks to restore freedom of choice to young people in the classroom... [by] breaking the naturalistic monopoly over school curricula."3  Naturalistic of course is referring to the discipline of science.  Thus, the aim of the FTE is to, supposedly, prevent the corrupting influence of a discipline dripping with systematic knowledge gained through controlled observation and experimentation.


It is a fact that intelligent design is not a testable 'theory.' This means that children, the adults of tomorrow are being taught a falsehood that is legitimised by the blind faith of their parents and their communities.  Ethically, this is wrong. It is wrong to distort the facts regarding evolutionary theory.  It is also wrong to impose religious culture into the secular education system.  Funnily enough, it violates the First American Amendment for the freedom of religion too4.  America is a melting pot of nationalities and religious faiths.  Teaching a 'theory' based on the Christian book of Genesis would monopolise those of other faiths (which explains why the FTE is also a strong proponent of Christian nationalism too).


 Putting all of that aside, religion is a blind leap of faith.  Science is not perfect but by its very definition, science is digging out its own flaws and laying them bare for the world to see, investigate and hopefully fix.  Intelligent design is being taught as the gospel, as something that 'seems likely because there is proof here and there' but it is not something that can be proven.  So it is unethical morally and scientifically to teach intelligent design in public schools.  Nonetheless, it still happens even in lands as great as America and there are plenty of individuals out there wanting it to be taught in their schools too.


To put it in plain English: let's stick to facts in the classroom and leave the gigantic and elaborate leaps of faith for the churches, mosques and other places of religious worship.

13 comments:

  1. you write that intelligent design should be discounted because it is not a testable theory = wrong!

    intelligent design proposes that when we look around at the natural world we see in plants and animals certain elements which have a clear design to them. ID logically states that design means there is a designer. design does not occur randomly. in fact design and random are oxymorons to one another!

    so ID is based on the fact that there is design in our world. it logically concludes a designer.
    are theories not based on fact? yes they are.

    ID theory then looks for evidence for a designer using all the science jargon, lab coats and controlled conditions science does. so is ID theory not being tested? yes it is.

    intelligent design is a *TESTABLE THEORY* and you cannot discount it from education based on that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is spot on.
    I'm glad I'm in a country where the seperation between church and state is very much practised and not just a fanciful thought!
    FTE are responsible for the Pandas textbook?

    ReplyDelete
  3. In response to Austin B:

    You're employing some impressively flawed logic to make your point there sir.

    ID is not a theory. A scientific theory is based upon a wealth of information. Such information is fact. ID is a conclusion for which the so-called 'researcher' attempts to find facts to support. ID refuses, much like creationism to accept that the conclusion or 'hypothesis' may be wrong even when it has continously faced negative results. That's not scientific and that's not logical. Rather, that's a strong subjective faith in the conclusion which compels said 'researcher' to continue on searching.

    To continue, if you're reference to evidence of design is going to provoke you to make the age old 'bacterial flagellum blah blah irreducibly complex - AHA, this means DESIGN!' argument then don't waste your time regurgitating that in your response. Instead, educate yourself a little and pick up a copy of 'The 7 Clues to the Origin of Life' by Cairns-Smith. A nice little passage from there clearly displays how flawed the creationist 'irreducibly complex' argument is:
    A free-standing arch of rough-hewn stones and no mortar can be a stable structure, but it is irreducibly complex: it collapses if any one stone is removed. How, then, was it built in the first place? One way is to pile a solid heap of stones, then carefully remove stones one by one. More generally, there are many structures that are irreducible in the sense that they cannot survive the subtraction of any part, but which were built with the aid of scaffolding that was subsequently subtracted and is no longer visible. Once the structure is completed, the scaffolding can be removed safely and the structure remains standing. In evolution, too, the organ or structure you are looking at may have had scaffolding in an ancestor which has since been removed.

    So to review, ID is not a scientific theory because the researchers seek to prove not disprove and will not accept it being disproven. That's a fact. ID is too intermingled with the religious (most often) right anyways. It takes a lot more than silly old science for people to drop their God.

    Ethically, it's not right to force any God or religion on children in any education system claiming secularity.

    ReplyDelete
  4. organisations like the FTE make me rage. so much power and ignorance. it's a lethal combo.

    ReplyDelete
  5. lol aaron b getting pawned

    on a srs biznus note thou evolution is common knowledge and fact. i will never understand how america land of the great fails so hard in the logic area

    ReplyDelete
  6. I saw a link to this post on WWD with Christine O'Donnellites talking about heathens and Jesus LOL

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's funny that WWD posters didn't post here. I think Austin B is now a cautionary tale LOL

    ReplyDelete
  8. I find it upsetting that we still have evolution 'debates.' What is there to debate? Evolution is science and fact. It's proven. The questions regarding evolution should be as far removed as possible from rhetoric like 'But what if it was God instead?'

    ReplyDelete
  9. Just because the liberal media refuse to fairly portray intelligent design THEORY does not mean that is the end of the story. The liberal media distorts and lies to show you the extreme and on-the-fringe intelligent design proponents who don't do science but are men of god instead trying to peddle a message. Just because of this it does not mean there are not intelligent design theorists who do things by the scientific rule book that someone like you would approve of. From this research you can see intelligent design is on equal footing with evolution theory. Do your homework! Or are you going to be like the rest and distort everything because you too have a liberal agenda?

    ReplyDelete
  10. @Austin B:

    Liberal media? you mean the media that states the facts and information without religious or political bias?

    Pffft. As soon as you are using catch-words like "liberal media" I already know you lost the debate.

    ReplyDelete
  11. LMFAO at the likes of Austin B. What a deluded moron.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @MK

    LOVE your response to austin b too. thats pretty much the intelligent design argument debunked in one fell sweep!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Intelligent design according to a general consensus here is that things that appear to have a design, must be created.

    Now, there's some serious flaw with that logic as it stands. A famous quote, an infinite number of monkeys, an infinite number of type writes, given an infinite amount of time at least one of them will create the full works of William Shakespeare and technically...one of already did.

    I personally have some doubts on the 'Theory of Evolution' but so far, nothing has come forward to my knowledge that provides the same amount of evidence, than humans evolved. What we evolved from is a different matter entirely and one that Natural Philosophers are going to be debating for a long time coming.

    I don't think that Creationism should be taught in 'Science' either. However I think it is vital to all schools that the main religions are looked at properly and assessed so that the students of today can be the better informed people of tomorrow.

    I shall have to read up on this intelligent design business and creationism. Apparently 1 in 3 Americans believe Creationism over Darwin theory.

    ReplyDelete