You hear about a growing
movement to introduce the concept of “intelligent design” into public school
science curriculum. So what’s all the
fuss? Intelligent Design Theory or ID
(not to be confused with ED) was crafted by folks who, for a variety of
reasons, disagree with the theory of evolution.
They think that the “scientists” are trying to debunk
their religious beliefs by insinuating that natural evolutionary processes
created life as we know it, not the Big Guy (Girl) Upstairs. This is an unfair accusation because we all
know that scientists do not have the time to debunk anything. They spend the majority of their time chasing
after government research grants.
ID proponents argue that many things in our environment
cannot be satisfactorily explained by mere evolutionary theory. Therefore, they believe that a “higher power”
or some intelligent force out there must have created us and most of the stuff
that makes up the natural world.
However, if the intelligent design people think that a
higher power is responsible for many of the wonderfully complex things in our
world, they should admit to some of the obvious flubs found in nature as well. People of a certain age may remember the 1977
film “Oh, God!” starring the late George Burns in the title role. In the movie, even he admitted that he got the
avocado wrong (“The pit’s too big.”).
There are many other questions that this so-called
intelligent designer must answer. Why
does healthy food not taste as good as unhealthy food? Why are weeds ugly? Why does “weekend” time go by faster than
“weekday” time?
The opponents of ID (scientists) are adamant about
preserving the separation of church and state and protecting the sanctity of
the public education system. They feel
that ID is nothing more than a thinly veiled reintroduction of creationism into
our otherwise spiritually antiseptic public schools.
The say “veiled” because ID proponents cleverly
disassociate themselves from mainstream religious beliefs by not specifically
identifying the intelligent designer. It
could be God. It could be alien beings. Sci-fi fans are thrilled with the latter.
As you may recall, a fellow named Charles “Chuck” Darwin
invented the theory of evolution more than 100 years ago, most likely in an
effort to secure a government grant. His
theory is that living things “evolve” over time to adapt to changing
environmental conditions. If a plant or
animal doesn’t adapt to its environment, it’s toast.
Most agreed that his was a swell theory. Chuck didn’t stop there. He further theorized that humans descended
from monkeys. Now this notion rubbed
some people the wrong way, but Darwin’s supporting evidence is quite
compelling: we like bananas; we scratch our heads when we’re confused, and we
sometimes screech for no apparent reason.
Ironically, the current intelligent design vs. evolution
debate supports his theory, too. We are
behaving like a bunch of monkeys. The
simple fact is the debate is moot. ID
can exist in tandem with any scientific theory. Religious faith and/or science fiction trumps
ordinary science every day of the week. Let’s just say God (or the aliens) invented
evolution and dismiss the complicated or analytical parts or parts we don’t
like to hear. Sorry, Charlie.
While intellegent design theory cannot be completely
discounted, teaching ID in science class is not a good idea. The role of public education is to provide our
young people with the basic knowledge and skills to navigate through life--the
three Rs of Readin’ (w)Ritin’ and ‘Rithmetic.
Add to that gym class, which teaches us humility, embarrassment, and, in
many ways, the practical application of evolutionary theory, e.g., survival of
the fittest.
ID just complicate matters. ID in science class makes it too easy on
learners. Since ID, by its very nature,
does not require observable, measurable proof that it exists, it can explain,
in one fell swoop, even the most complex systems in the realm of the natural
sciences. It is the academic equivalent
of, “Because I said so.”
No more drawing a blank on the science quiz; “ID” is
always a plausible answer. Learners will
undoubtedly use ID to their advantage in other ways. Instead of using the time-worn excuse, “The
dog ate my homework,” which is perfectly sound by ordinary scientific
standards, teachers will now hear ID-inspired excuses such as, “A higher power
directed me to play my X-box ‘til 3 a.m., which did not afford me the
opportunity to complete the assignment.”
My real concern is if people start questioning the
appropriateness of teaching the theory of evolution in school, what’s next? How many times have perplexed math learners
wondered aloud, “Will I ever use this later in life?” “Do I really need to know
this?” The answer is, quite frankly, no.
Not unless you are planning to be an
engineer, math teacher, God forbid, a scientist, work in construction, use
technology at the store or just help your kids with homework…
No comments:
Post a Comment