The Young Earth Creationists spearheaded by the Discovery Institute have scored a victory in dictating public policy with regard to how science education is taught in public schools.
Fortunately, the pro-science advocates were successful in preventing the adoption of the "strengths and weaknesses" clause with respect to the theory of evolution. This clause falsely implies there is scientific evidence in favor of intelligent design creationism or against evolution.
However, the Discovery Institute successfully lobbied the Texas School Board to revise the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills to include a clause requiring students to "analyze and evaluate" evolution, including to "analyze and evaluate" core evolutionary claims like natural selection, mutations and common ancestry according to Discovery Institute fellow Casey Luskin.
By casting unwarranted doubt on evolution, creationists have succeeded in leaving the door open to allowing the teaching of intelligent design creationism. This is a goal the Discovery Institute actively sought in its support of the teaching of intelligent design creationism in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Pennsylvania case. Nevertheless, conservative Judge John E. Jones III, a Bush appointee ruled, "(Intelligent design creationism) is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."
This recent political lobbying is consistent with the institute's mission to seek "nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies." These legacies include "scientific materialism" which, according to the Institute's Wedge Document, has led to moral relativism and its consequent diminution of personal responsibility.
To justify this introduction of pseudoscience into the curriculum, creationists frequently use the refrain we should "teach the controversy" - that is to say give equal time to opposing points of view merely because there are people who hold them.
There are serious problems with a consistent application of this principle, as creationists are undoubtedly aware. There would in principle be no reason to bar the teaching of creation myths of Buddhism or Hinduism or any of the hundreds of minor myths, all during science education class.
This consequence is no doubt unpalatable to Christian creationists, as well as principled defenders of the Constitution.
Why not give a hearing to the Flat Earth Society who no doubt would love to require that students be made to evaluate "all sides of the scientific evidence" regarding the shape of the Earth? Why limit this relativism to the epistemic variety. Why not teach Nazism and communism as viable political systems or that cannibalism is just another preference.
Clearly, the "teach the controversy" refrain takes as its premise that all ideas and belief systems are equally valid in a sense, so long as there are people endorse them. We are thus faced with the startling prospect of a radical right-wing organization-endorsing relativism. It is ironic the same organization that claims to oppose the encroachment of relativism in culture depends on it to advance their agenda.
There are a number of criteria a given set of ideas must satisfy in order to be accepted as part of a scientific discipline.
First is a particular theory undergo examination by the peer review process. It is important to note there is not one peer reviewed article that has been published supporting intelligent design, either produced by the "scientists" at the Discovery Institute, or anyone else according.
By contrast, there is not one peer-reviewed article challenging evolution 150 years after Darwin published "The Origin of Species" according to philosopher Barbara Forrest.
As Theodosius Dobzhansky said, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Evolution has helped us understand genetics, microbiology, etc. It has led to the development of medical technology that has saved the lives of billions of people and extended the human life span from about 30 to 80 years in less than two centuries.
As Discovery Institute fellow Philip E. Johnson admits, the issue of intelligent design creationism "Isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy."
The historical record attests to this fact: Creationism, in any of its forms, has yet to produce one piece of empirical evidence that has increased the body of scientific knowledge, despite having an 1850-year head start on the theory of evolution.
More importantly, it has not led to a single instance of medical technology or saved a single human life from the ravages of disease. This is because evolutionary biology is a process of making inferences based on observations about the world, a process that intelligent design creationism proponents decry as "materialism."
By contrast, intelligent design creationism is little more than adherence to the arbitrary assertions of religious dogma, while ignoring the vast body of facts provided by observation.
This is the reason why evolution has earned its place in the curriculum in its undiluted form and why creationism has no place in education.
Be the first to comment on this article!