Depending on the outcome of a US federal court case this year the science classes of a public school in the Dover School District, Pennsylvania may find their evolution lessons preceded by something of a disclaimer. "…Because Darwin's Theory is a theory,” the district super-intendant would read, “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.” Advocates claim that they are attempting to strengthen and not weaken science as their critics argue. With what they call Intelligent Design Theory, proponents mean to challenge what they describe as the “Darwinist Inquisition” that has spread through out public educational institutions, stifling genuine scientific inquiry and anything that might challenge Darwinist orthodoxy. They offer what they argue is genuine and scientific alternative to evolution.
“A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view,” the super-intendant continues. Proponents of Intelligent Design point to holes and errors in the logic of evolution and its reliance on the chaotic nature of the universe, i.e. random mutation. According to the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian think-tank that has been at the forefront of promoting origins science, ID is a scientific theory that “holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” They argue that their are elements far too complex to be coincidental and they mean to scientifically prove that there is nothing random about 'evolution'. The Institute and many defenders of ID are at pains however, to point out that their theory is separate from creationism, a literal interpretation of the bible and not science, nor do they claim that theories come close to determining the identity of this creator.
So the super-intendant reads on: “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 Origins of Life to individual students and their families…” Similarly the Discovery Institute do not advocate the teaching of ID in classrooms, instead they urge that states and school districts “focus on teaching students more about evolutionary theory, including telling them about some of the theory's problems.” In sum “evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned.”
It all seems reasonable enough.
Now I could take the view that all this is really the wolf in sheep’s clothing. That Discovery Institute, as one critic put it “use intelligent design as a wedge to undermine evolution with scientific-sounding arguments and thereby advance a conservative religious-political agenda,” by highlighting flaws real or apparent in the science of evolution to a largely unscientific and generally undiscerning public.
Instead I choose to accept their claims as genuine, that they are defending science from evolutionist dogmatic beliefs in favour of more dispassionate objectivity. Never mind that many of the Institute are staunchly Christian and that on occasion they might overstep the bounds of science. For example when the Institute’s William Dembski (with doctorates in mathematics and philosophy) said at a National Religious Broadcasters meeting that “if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It's important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world.”
In the spirit of this pluralism that conservative Christianity has taken to heart in defence of science, not to further their own religious objectives but to further objective (and rigorous) scientific inquiry I offer my own disclaimer in the hope that in this spirit it is also accepted with open arms and churches across the world adopt this or something similar to precede their sermons.
It reads:
“Because Christianity is just a belief it must not be confused with science that uses verifiable facts to support theories based on observation. There is as yet no proof that God exists and there is certainly no evidence to suggest that the events in the bible have a supernatural explanation. While Christianity is a belief that gives spiritual and moral guidance to millions across the world the same words are interpreted differently, as religion is based on personal faith there cannot be one correct interpretation. Indeed there are many faiths different from that which is presented to you now, equally based on belief and may or may not be equally valid or correct as Christianity. We have placed their texts and promotional literature in the lobby should anyone be curious after completion of today’s service.”
Links:
http://www.discovery.org/
Steve Benen, The Discovery Institute: Genesis Of 'Intelligent Design,' Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5582&abbr=cs_
No comments:
Post a Comment