Intelligent design should not excluded from the study of origins – Complex biological systems have not been explained by neo-Darwinian processes
Absolutely and totally agree with these comments from Alastair Noble on the Comment is Free Blog. It is fine and dandy to teach 5 year olds about sex and drugs, but government forbid, we should teach an alternative to evolutionism and encourage critical thinking by also offering intelligent design.
Your article stated that “the government is ready to put evolution on the primary curriculum for the first time after years of lobbying by senior scientists” (Scientists win place for evolution in primary schools, 9 November).
Andrew Copson, director of education at the British Humanist Society, found this “particularly important”. The plans, you report, come “in the wake of a recent survey commissioned by the British Council which found that 54% of Britons agreed … that ‘evolutionary theories should be taught in science lessons in schools together with other possible perspectives, such as intelligent design and creationism‘.”
As a former science teacher and schools inspector, I am disturbed that proposals for science education are based on near-complete ignorance of intelligent design. I also think the views of most British people in this matter should not be so readily set aside.
It is an all too common error to confuse intelligent design with religious belief. While creationism draws its conclusions primarily from religious sources, intelligent design argues from observations of the natural world. And it has a good pedigree. A universe intelligible by design principles was the conclusion of many of the great pioneers of modern science.
It is easily overlooked that the origin of life, the integrated complexity of biological systems and the vast information content of DNA have not been adequately explained by purely materialistic or neo-Darwinian processes. Indeed it is hard to see how they ever will.
In an area such as this, where we cannot observe what happened directly, a legitimate scientific approach is to make an inference to the best explanation. In the case of the huge bank of functional information embedded in biological systems, the best explanation – based on the observation everywhere else that such information only arises from intelligence – is that it too has an intelligent source.
You quote schools minister Diana Johnson, who says: “Learning about evolution is an important part of science education.” If so, then thinking about what must have preceded it is also a legitimate area for science. The school pupil’s question is always going to be: where did it all come from?
There is a tendency in school science to present the evidence for evolution as uniformly convincing and all-encompassing, failing to distinguish between what is directly observable – such as change and adaptation over time through natural selection – and the more hypothetical elements, like the descent of all living things from a common ancestor. The evidence for these various strands is not of equal strength.
If you insist that intelligent causation is to be excluded in the study of origins then you are teaching materialist philosophy, not science.
I believe current government guidance is wrong in denying intelligent design the status of science. However, it does encourage teachers to handle it “positively and educationally”. That’s a small step in the right direction.
Tags: Education
December 1st, 2009 at 12:08 pm
you wrote: “Absolutly and totally agree with these comments from Alastair Noble on the Comment is Free Blog. It is fine and dandy to teach 5 year olds about sex and drugs, but government forbid, we should teach an alternative to evolutionism and encourage critical thinking by also offering intelligent design.”
First of all, there is no such thing as ‘evolutionism’. That word was coined by professional LFJs™ (Liars For Jesus) is a lame attempt to make it seem as if science is just another dogmatic ‘belief system’. In other words… it is a form of lying.
This is about science… and ‘Intelligent Design’ (ID) is NOT science. Even according to Michael Behe (one of the charlatans who dreamed-up ID… under oath… on the witness stand), in order for ID to be CONSIDERED as ‘science’, the DEFINITION of science would have to be revised… and the required change would ALSO admit such disciplines as astrology… phrenology… numerology… under the umbrella of ‘science’.
Further… as laid out in the Discovery Institute’s ‘Wedge Strategy’ (wedge document), ID is nothing more than a POLITICAL SCHEME… a relabeling of creationism with the express purpose of bamboozling the scientifically ignorant (which, unfortunately, constitutes over 85% of the population).
I assure you that ‘critical thinking’ is NOT what you want taught or applied here, because creationism… ‘creation science’… Intelligent Design (all variations of the same idiocy) cannot withstand the bright, glaring light of reason, logic and critical thinking. Of course, that would be if you used the REAL definition of ‘critical thinking’. The people who want to teach intelligent design and creationism are the same people who define ‘critical thinking’ as the intellectual process of reconciling facts and evidence with scripture… and where facts and evidence cannot be twisted, distorted and misrepresented to the point that they can me made to (falsely) APPEAR as if they conform to scripture, they get tossed out. In other words, where reality conflicts with scripture, reality gets tossed. It is instructive to look at the last item of ‘Answers In Genesis’ Statement of Faith’. You will find similar sentiments throughout the ‘Intelligent design’ (creationist) community.
One of the key elements of the Wedge Strategy is to get the various creationism factions (young earth… old earth… etc.) to set aside their differences, and unite under the banner of Intelligent Design, in order to defeat ‘methodological naturalism’ (science).
December 2nd, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Apparently, just like the Christians in America, the Christians in the UK love censorship more than anything else. Being a coward is obviously a problem most Christians share.
December 2nd, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Dear Dr. Noble,
Given that Paul Nelson, one of the prominent leaders in the Intelligent Design movement, has stated publicly that ID has no theoretical constructs, how would propose to teach it as science? How would it be testable?
December 2nd, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Hi Human Ape. While that certainly does describe some Christians (and other people), there are those of us that truly want honest science taught in the United States. Without that, human progress will come to a screeching halt.