Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Intelligent design bashers aren't doing their homework

As a local college professor and historian of intelligent design (my Doubts about Darwin was my doctoral thesis at USF), I have become dominated with one recurring question: Will media bashers of intelligent design ever do their homework? Will they ever rouse themselves from the kindergarten-level of awareness, and "read up" on ID and the evidence it's based on? I wonder.

Charles Krauthammer's inflammatory (and empirically empty) description of ID as a "scientific fraud" ("Intelligent design" debate an insult to religion , Nov. 18), follows the Times' own Nov. 14 editorial (Creationism in class ), not to mention George Will's recent ID-bashing.

A quick question for the under-informed Krauthammer, whose columns I usually find well-informed: If the theory of macroevolution is more or less solved, then why does MIT Press release a book, Origination of Organismal Form, which suggests that the current theory utterly fails to explain the rise of new body structures? If ID is so worthy of your contempt, then why did the Cambridge University Press produce two academic books in which the detection of intelligent design (even in nature!) is taken very, very seriously? I'm referring to the technical work, The Design Inference by mathematician William Dembski, along with the fascinating new volume Debating Design in which 20 scholars engage in thoughtful debate over the pros and cons of ID theory.

Even the New York Times , three times over the past decade, has invited ID biochemist Mike Behe to contribute a column, presenting the case for design from hyper-complex nanomachines that have been discovered inside cells. Would the St. Petersburg Times, to provide balance, ever do the same? I won't hold my breath.

But I would be satisfied if the members of the Times editorial board would at least read one book, say, Behe's best-seller Darwin's Black Box, and then we can graduate them to the first grade.

Try an inclusive curriculum

Re: Creationism in class, editorial, Nov. 14.

There is a way in which the "theories" of intelligent design and Darwinian evolution can be presented in a single course, which should satisfy proponents of both sides of the issue.

First, simply start the course with information upon which both agree, namely the complexity of life. Begin, say, with a physiological definition of life, proceed to the cell and its internal components, work up the taxonomic tree from single-celled organisms to humans and and so on. This should take roughly half to two-thirds of the year.

Then go to the "competing" theories of how life came to be this way. Start by showing the support for intelligent design theory. This can be done with reference to, say, the clockmaker analogy and some cosmogony theories as offered from a representation of the traditions of major religions, e.g. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. This should take about one class - maybe two classes, if a wide range of religions is used. After all, religion can be the subject of classroom discussion as long as religion itself is not being taught.

Next, present the genetic theories using the usual basic pea-growing and fruit flies experiments and the supporting scientific evidence for Darwinian natural selection, genetic exchange, and so forth. This should take a few more months and bring the course to a close. Both theories represented with supporting evidence, both sides satisfied. What's all the fuss about?

There are profound implications

Re: Creationism in class, editorial.

You cite that the state science curriculum does not confer the right to offer religious beliefs as though they are scientifically based. This description, however, could apply to the general theory of evolution as well. Even though natural selection and mutation are well-documented processes, the scale of molecules-to-man or fish-to-philosopher changes does not square with the extensive fossil record, the law of abiogenesis or the second law of thermodynamics, to name but a few.

And the fact that a state education employee believes "God created heavens and the earth" is not an "encouraging" sign to the Times ? Perhaps you would do away with that pesky Declaration of Independence which refers to all men being "... endowed by their Creator... "

You say this is a "distraction." But I believe a majority of citizens are aware that the difference between being here on purpose (having a distinct value and worth), and being the accidental product of time and chance, carries profound implications in almost every area of society.

ID not appropriate for public schools

Re: Creationism in class.

Intelligent design has no place being taught in public schools. I repeat, public schools. Most schools have students of diverse spiritual backgrounds - monotheists, polytheists, Wiccans, agnostics and atheists - so there's no one belief system suitable for all of them.

Outside of philosophy class, let's keep public education scientific and empirical. Those who want a faith-oriented curriculum for their children need to enroll them in private schools.

Rely on the test of time

Re: Creationism in class.

I find it amusing that the St. Petersburg Times editorial staff could keep a straight face in suggesting that the infant 146-year-old theory of evolution is any match for the time-tested, thousands-of-years-old, well-established understanding that the world was created by God almighty.

Is it possible that the relatively recent theory of evolution, which will turn out to be a "scientific" fad, is in fact what the Times is referring to as the "distraction, and intrusion" Florida classrooms don't need?

It's pushing religious beliefs

There is no place for intelligent design in our school systems. Call it what you will, but it is religion. It is the Christian right's movement to push their religious beliefs on the rest of us. Evolution is science. We have overwhelming scientific data supporting it, including a vast body of corroborating molecular and genetic evidence, and that body of knowledge grows every day.

It is critical that our students learn what they need to know to be competitive in the modern world and not be confused by people pushing a religious agenda. Kansas is the laughingstock of the nation. Dover, Pa., kicked out all the board members supporting the ID movement. It is time to ensure that our students are not misled.

Keep the subjects separate

I do not understand the controversy about evolution vs. intelligent design. There is no right or wrong here. To put it simply, evolution is a scientific principle and must be taught in public schools. Intelligent design is a religious principle and should be taught only in church.

Our children should learn both. Just not in the same place. Let us keep Caesar separate from God as we were taught.

[Last modified November 22, 2005, 08:48:05]