intelligent design*
by John at 4/06/2005 03:36:00 PM
Pennsylvania legislators are considering a bill (H.B. 1007) to permit the teaching of intelligent design in public school science classrooms. Intelligent design (ID), simply expressed, is the belief that some sort of conscious entity was behind the creation of the universe, the evolution of life on Earth, and the eventual evolution of humans. As Scientific American put it recently in a facetious April Fool's editorial:
"Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details."
Of course, the lack of details is what makes it non-scientific. ID has no testable hypotheses, begs the question of observed design, and is not falsifiable. It stands to reason that it's not appropriate to teach a non-scientific idea like ID in science classrooms, because it is not science. It is no more science than popstrology is science, and you wouldn't want them to teach that to your kids in science class, would you? No, you wouldn't.
To the point: if you live in Pennsylvania, write your state representative and let him or her know that you are opposed to this bill.**
You can read the full text here. I especially like part b, "When providing supporting evidence on the theory of intelligent design, no teacher in a public school may stress any particular denominational, sectarian or religious belief," which means that students must be taught intelligent design in such a way that theism is not stressed. This, as you correctly surmise, allows only the possibility that powerful (yet natural) extraterrestrial intelligences directed evolution on the Earth. The Scientologists and Raelians will be pleased, but I don't think evangelicals will.
(via Tea Leaves)
-----
* no, not a Grandaddy song
** no, I'm not kidding myself - there's only one person in PA I know who reads this blog besides me
"Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details."
Of course, the lack of details is what makes it non-scientific. ID has no testable hypotheses, begs the question of observed design, and is not falsifiable. It stands to reason that it's not appropriate to teach a non-scientific idea like ID in science classrooms, because it is not science. It is no more science than popstrology is science, and you wouldn't want them to teach that to your kids in science class, would you? No, you wouldn't.
To the point: if you live in Pennsylvania, write your state representative and let him or her know that you are opposed to this bill.**
You can read the full text here. I especially like part b, "When providing supporting evidence on the theory of intelligent design, no teacher in a public school may stress any particular denominational, sectarian or religious belief," which means that students must be taught intelligent design in such a way that theism is not stressed. This, as you correctly surmise, allows only the possibility that powerful (yet natural) extraterrestrial intelligences directed evolution on the Earth. The Scientologists and Raelians will be pleased, but I don't think evangelicals will.
(via Tea Leaves)
-----
* no, not a Grandaddy song
** no, I'm not kidding myself - there's only one person in PA I know who reads this blog besides me
» Post a Comment