Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report

hats13

eZine's profile picture
Published in 
Hats
 · 26 Apr 2019

  

__
/ \
/____\
.________/][][][\_______.
\__________ __________/
! / /!/ //!\ \! __!_\ !
/ /_/ // \\ \ \_____
/ __ // /\ \\ \_____ \
/ / / // ____ \\ \____\ \
/_/ /_//_/ \_\\_\______\
T-File_13_____October_1_2005
Intelligent Design: The Science of Bullshit
By Emoticon

_______________________________________________________________________________________
The commencement of the 1982-1983 school year marked, for Louisiana, the first \
year in which so-called "creation-science" would join evolution-science in the public |
school curriculum, as called for in the Louisiana Creationism Act [6]. Public schools |
were, by mandate of state statutes, being used to endorse a specific religion, and it |
wasn't long before this law was ruled unconstitutional. In 1987 the Creationism Act |
was found by the Supreme Court, in Alliguard V. Edwards, to be in violation of the |
First Amendment's Establishment Clause which reads "Congress shall make no law |
respecting an establishment of religion" [7][8]. While it would seem that this ruling, |
based on the unambiguous wording of our founding fathers, was quite definitive, the |
debate over creationism in the classroom has anything but subsided, and has in fact |
taken a new form, 18 years later, and our liberties afforded by the Bill of Rights are |
once again being threatened. <
In the late 1980s, the "intelligent design" movement arose, promoting an |
allegedly secular origin theory contingent upon the idea that the universe is too |
complex to have been formed without intelligent planning. The debatably nonscientific |
science of intelligent design, outlined in the 1989 text book "Of Pandas and People," |
is the study of patterns which substantiate the existence of such a being [5]. Despite |
notable connections to the Christian creationist community (most notably its |
endorsement by many outspoken Christians, such as President Bush (who presently has |
power of appointment to fill two supreme court chairs), and its appearance in the |
mainstream shortly after the 1987 creationism case), intelligent design makes no direct |
reference to a "god" or the book of Genesis. Though intelligent design's proponents' |
claim that their theory is secular, it's introduction into the Dover, Pennsylvania |
curriculum alongside evolution, in October of 2004, brought a lawsuit filed by outraged |
parents, joined by the American Civil Liberties Union, against the school board [4]. |
The federal district court trial began this past Monday (September 27, 2005), and |
whatever the verdict, the case will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court, for a |
decision as important as Aguillard V. Edwards. <
Proponents of alternative origin sciences point out that evolution is only one |
of many theories, which itself has numerous variations. As such, many argue that |
students should be exposed to other possibilities. After all, the scientific community |
has embraced fallacies in the past (such as the notion that the Earth is flat or that |
the Sun revolves around the Earth), and even the popularly accepted theory of evolution |
has taken many forms since its conception. <
Secular theories of evolution can be traced back to Greek atomists around 400 |
BC, who first conjectured that all matter was made up of uncreated atoms, the smallest |
unit of matter, derived from the Greek word atomos which means "that which cannot be |
subdivided." Between 400 and and 300 BC, however, the criticism from two revered minds, |
Plato and Aristotle, significantly marginalized these ideas [1]. 2,200 years later, |
Darwin's theories of evolution were first being published, and facing overwhelming |
objection from the scientific community et al. Today the scientific community largely |
accepts evolutionary science based on Darwin's work, however not without modification |
to the 19th century ideas. <
Certainly, one thing we can learn from the amorphousness of what we call |
"conventional knowledge," is that plasticity of the mind is necessary when dealing with |
science, especially at the rate at which new information comes to light in this day and |
age. On that note, many feel that origin science is incomplete without discussing |
alternatives such as intelligent design. While it is true that any evolutionary |
biologist should be open to other possibilities, this hardly justifies theological, |
pseudo scientific practices in public school. <
Modern scientists follow the scientific method - a process in which one forms |
and tests a hypothesis to investigate a subject. Science is not used as a device to |
prove one's predictions correct. Intelligent design, however, is the search for |
patterns which substantiate the central idea that the universe was created by some |
intelligent being. With this haphazard form of science, there is no possibility for a |
confounding variable - one can simply ignore anything that doesn't coincide with their |
statement. Quite simply intelligent design is not science by today's acceptable |
standards. <
Evolution is the cornerstone of understanding modern biological topics from |
genetics to the proliferation of disease. Subsequently, evolutionary science is also |
key in studying applications as developing treatments and cures for genetic disorders |
and AIDS. Evolution has been accepted for 100 years among the scientific community, |
and few question its scientific validity. While no one can say that the current field |
of evolutionary science is complete or perfect, it is undeniably worthwhile to be |
taught. The same argument cannot be made for intelligent design, which does not |
further our understanding of the world, but merely aggregates proof that the world is |
too complex to have "just happened that way" with no scientific benefit in sight. |
More important than the scientific value, or lack-thereof, of intelligent <
design's academic pursuit is its violation of the very first of line of the very first |
amendment of the Bill of Rights. Although it is calculably secular in its vocabulary, |
that is where the separation between Christianity and intelligent design ceases. |
Prominent proponents of intelligent design are almost all outspoken Christians, |
including William Dembski who wrote in his book Intelligent Design; the Bridge Between |
Science and Theology that "Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if |
its practitioners don't have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory |
can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of |
the theory can in the end only be located in Christ [9]." Furthermore, the Seattle, |
Washington-based Discovery Institute is an organization with a staunch history of |
backing a conservative Christian agenda also backs intelligent design with their |
antagonistic and divisive "Teach the Controversy" campaign, which aims to redefine |
modern science around the theory [2]. <
Beyond the Christian individuals and organizations who back intelligent design, |
there is an inherent and undeniable theological quality to intelligent design. Its |
central idea is that the world, the universe, is too complex to have been formed |
without the aid of some kind of intelligence, and the entire study is devoted to |
proving that. Believing that intelligent designer created the universe is itself a |
leap of faith. While faith is fine in a religious context, it makes no sense in a |
scientific one. Quite simply, if we can accept intelligent design as science, it's an |
indistinguishably small step to accept Christian creationism as science. Neither are |
supported by evidence, but are embraced by the human condition. <
Intelligent design has no place in public schools as long as the Constitution |
is worth more than the paper it's written on. The political power of the Christian |
right is being used to manipulate the United States legal system in an attempt to |
bypass past Supreme Court legislation, and it's a sad day in America when we roll over |
and let this kind of disrespect for our freedoms go unchecked - let's hope we can still |
have faith (pun intended) the United States judicial system. |
_______________________________________________________________________________________/

__________/ Works Cited \______________________________________________________________
\
[1] "Atomism." Wikipedia. 25 Sept. 2005. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomism> |
[2] "Discovery Institute." Wikipedia. 25 Sept. 2005. |
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute> |
[3] "Evolutionism." Wikipedia. 25 Sept. 2005. |
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism> |
[4] Goodstein, Laurie."A web of faith, law and science in evolution suit." |
New York Times. 26 Sept, 2005. |
[5] "Intelligent Design." Wikipedia. 25 Sept. 2005. |
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design> |
[6] Louisiana Revised Statutes. Title 17. Chapter 1. Part 3. Sec 286.4. A. |
[7] United States Supreme Court. Edward Vs. Aguillard. 482 U.S. 578. 1987. |
[8] US Const. Bill of Rights. Amendment 1. |
[9] "William A, Dembski" Wikipedia. 25 Sept. 2005. |
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dembski> |
_______________________________________________________________________________________/

← previous
next →
loading
sending ...
New to Neperos ? Sign Up for free
download Neperos from Google Play

Recent Articles

Recent Comments

Neperos cookies
This website uses cookies to store your preferences and improve the service. Cookies authorization will allow me and / or my partners to process personal data such as browsing behaviour.

By pressing OK you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge the Privacy Policy

By pressing REJECT you will be able to continue to use Neperos (like read articles or write comments) but some important cookies will not be set. This may affect certain features and functions of the platform.
OK
REJECT