(Can't) Talk of the Times
Last Wednesday I had the opportunity to go to a debate. This was the real deal. Sponsored by the Seattle P-I's "Talk of the Times" series at the Seattle Town Hall. I didn't know Seattle had a town hall …
To clarify, intelligent design (ID) is the theory based on nature's clear design and "irreducible complexity" there is an "intelligence" that created or guided all of creation. It does not claim to know that intelligence, but simply presents the idea that such a "creator" exists. This is different from creationism, defined by Merriam Webster as "Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible." However, the similarities between creationism and intelligent design are fairly apparent. In the not-so-old Dover School case, the judge ruled that ID was too much of a "religious alternative" to evolution and could not be taught in the school.
Nevertheless, the debate I attended was regarding ID versus evolution. Stephen Meyer, Director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute supports ID and went head to head with Peter Ward, Professor of Earth and Space Sciences at the University of Washington, in an engaging discussion of ideas … at least that's what I expected.
Unfortunately, Peter Ward tried to substitute flippancy for facts. Stephen Mayer presented far more evidence, quotes, analysis, talking points, rebuttals, and critiques than Ward, who would simply interject with comments like "It [ID] is not a theory," "you know if President Bush supports ID [obvious pause]," and "because evolutionary knowledge helps scientists to understand the mutation of viruses and ID does not, all you ID people can't use immunizations and remain intellectually honest!" I was disappointed that Ward did not adequately address the ideas and arguments presented by Meyer.
One other point that Ward kept repeating was that teaching the controversy between evolution and ID to students, such as a ninth graders, would be detrimental to their educational career and dull their intellectual curiosity. One only need to look over the crowd of 200+ people present to see that people want to know more about the controversy. Curiosity is actually diminished and incomplete ideas are ingrained in students' heads if other positions are not at least mentioned.
John Stewart Mill wrote about the "free market place of ideas." He asserted that the truth has a unique ability to survive and rise to the top of human knowledge when placed in direct conflict with other ideas. This is my primary issue with evolution today. Unlike the Scopes "Monkey" Trials that fought for evolution to be presented in a classroom, proponents of evolution today seek to remove all discussion from the school. The free market of ideas only works when there is contention and debate over ideas and theories. Covering up other points of view only harms the discussion seeking truth, be it evolution or ID.
This issue is certainly an important one in today's culture. However, we also need to look at the "big picture." If schools are not even able to discuss critically something that contains religious inferences, how is that preparing students for life? Quite frankly, if students don't hear about evolutionary criticism from an "objective" context, they will have to muddle it out when they hear about the controversy from their parents or even the news media. The suppression of other points of view in support of any truth has dangerous implications. If one can't talk about the origin of man, what won't we be able to talk about next?
To clarify, intelligent design (ID) is the theory based on nature's clear design and "irreducible complexity" there is an "intelligence" that created or guided all of creation. It does not claim to know that intelligence, but simply presents the idea that such a "creator" exists. This is different from creationism, defined by Merriam Webster as "Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible." However, the similarities between creationism and intelligent design are fairly apparent. In the not-so-old Dover School case, the judge ruled that ID was too much of a "religious alternative" to evolution and could not be taught in the school.
Nevertheless, the debate I attended was regarding ID versus evolution. Stephen Meyer, Director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute supports ID and went head to head with Peter Ward, Professor of Earth and Space Sciences at the University of Washington, in an engaging discussion of ideas … at least that's what I expected.
Unfortunately, Peter Ward tried to substitute flippancy for facts. Stephen Mayer presented far more evidence, quotes, analysis, talking points, rebuttals, and critiques than Ward, who would simply interject with comments like "It [ID] is not a theory," "you know if President Bush supports ID [obvious pause]," and "because evolutionary knowledge helps scientists to understand the mutation of viruses and ID does not, all you ID people can't use immunizations and remain intellectually honest!" I was disappointed that Ward did not adequately address the ideas and arguments presented by Meyer.
One other point that Ward kept repeating was that teaching the controversy between evolution and ID to students, such as a ninth graders, would be detrimental to their educational career and dull their intellectual curiosity. One only need to look over the crowd of 200+ people present to see that people want to know more about the controversy. Curiosity is actually diminished and incomplete ideas are ingrained in students' heads if other positions are not at least mentioned.
John Stewart Mill wrote about the "free market place of ideas." He asserted that the truth has a unique ability to survive and rise to the top of human knowledge when placed in direct conflict with other ideas. This is my primary issue with evolution today. Unlike the Scopes "Monkey" Trials that fought for evolution to be presented in a classroom, proponents of evolution today seek to remove all discussion from the school. The free market of ideas only works when there is contention and debate over ideas and theories. Covering up other points of view only harms the discussion seeking truth, be it evolution or ID.
This issue is certainly an important one in today's culture. However, we also need to look at the "big picture." If schools are not even able to discuss critically something that contains religious inferences, how is that preparing students for life? Quite frankly, if students don't hear about evolutionary criticism from an "objective" context, they will have to muddle it out when they hear about the controversy from their parents or even the news media. The suppression of other points of view in support of any truth has dangerous implications. If one can't talk about the origin of man, what won't we be able to talk about next?
posted by Matt Pitchford at 21:09
2 Comments:
Wow, great post. Interesting how a debate worked between the ID and the evolutionist. It seems like evolutionists think blanket statements are okay..."it's not scientific so we're right." I liked your point about how important the FREEDOM to discuss the origin of man is.
Aye, well, pianos used to be outlawed from playing in churches once upon a time, and organs before that.
Post a Comment
<< Home