For what we are about to receive
|
 |
Is civilisation at risk if our children are taught evolution? Supporters of Intelligent Design think so. And they’re determined their theory should have equal time in school science classes.
The British Government has made its opinion clear, stating: “Neither Intelligent Design nor Creationism are recognised scientific theories”. And yet some school science benches are making room for it. According to the organisation behind the ID information packs, there are currently 59 establishments using them as “…a useful classroom resource”.
“Dozens of schools are using Creationist teaching materials condemned by the government”, says James Randerson, Science Correspondent for The Guardian; and Lewis Wolpert, developmental biologist at the University of London, says: “There is just no evidence for Intelligent Design, it is pure religion and has nothing to do with science”.
So, is ID ‘pure religion’ or is it possible science? Because that’s what the crossed swords are all about. And the battlefield: our schools.
Origin of the Theses
If you want some background on either Evolution or Intelligent Design’s Theory of Irreducible Complexity, Specified Complexity and Anthropic Principle, go ahead and Google. It’s terribly complicated. But in a bid for survival of the simplest, here’s a quick summary:
Intelligent Design says:
Darwin’s theory of evolution cannot explain mechanisms as complex as the eye. How could the eye have evolved if, by removing any small part of it, it no longer works?
If you pick up a pebble, it’s just a pebble. Pick up a watch, though, and here is evidence of design. Something crafted for a specific purpose – like the eye. And where there’s design, there’s a designer.
This designer may have assembled the first cell, after which evolution proceeded, but your cells contain micro-machines that have been engineered so precisely for their function that we must be the products of an intelligent creator.
“The entire question of design must be opened up”, says J. Wells, one of the founding fathers of the movement. “Students should also be taught that design remains a possibility.”
The Scientists say:
A scientific ‘theory’ must be capable of being tested, and requires evidence. Like Darwin’s.
The various ID ‘theories’ are just plain wrong, and in fact evolution shows exactly how fantastically complex features – like the eye – could come about by natural selection.
ID’ers find gaps in the fossil evidence for evolution and plug them with a creator. Each time science manages to plug a gap with new evidence, ID retreats and looks for another.
According to the science journal, Natural History, ‘Most biologists have concluded that the proponents of Intelligent Design display either ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of evolutionary science.’
Fighting talk
Professor Richard Dawkins
“The enlightenment is under threat. So is reason. So is truth. So is science…I am one of those scientists who feels that it is no longer enough just to get on and do science. We have to devote a significant proportion of our time and resources to defending it from deliberate attack from organised ignorance.”
True Believers
According to Evolutionists Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne in The Guardian, ‘teaching the controversy’ is a way of making legitimate a theory that isn’t. “When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity”, they say, “the truth does not necessarily lie exactly half way between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong.” They also say the movement is a religious one. And one that has a religious agenda in education.
If so, whose religion is it anyway? Well, the Pope has declared himself for evolution. The Archbishop of Canterbury is ‘uncomfortable’ about ID being taught in schools. And those who argue against ID both as a science and as a subject for science classes include scientists of every faith and of none. In fact, the five founding fathers of 20th century evolutionary biology were 1) a devout Anglican 2) a Unitarian 3) an Eastern mystic 4) a member of the Russian Orthodox Church, and only one atheist - 5).
All the most prominent names of the ID movement – Behe, Johnson, Wells, Dembski and others – are self-professed Christians, many of them evangelical. “As Christians”, writes Dembski, “we know that … nature is not self-sufficient”.
Science says that what Dembski ‘knows as a Christian’ is a matter of faith, not science. And no one would say that the concept of a great creator shouldn’t be taught in religious education, philosophy or history of ideas classes. But in terms of a scientific theory… Conventional scientists claim to have punched holes the size of small continents through it, and declare its theories have no more place in the science class than the stork theory has in a sex education class.
But if they find Intelligent Design so apparently risible, then why the long faces?
According to their own documents, supporters of ID are employing a ‘wedge’ technique: drive a wedge into the arguments for evolution and, like a log, you’ll split it. “The Wedge aims to ‘renew’ American culture by grounding… education in evangelical religion,” says Professor B. Forrest in her overview of ID, after a 10-year research project into the movement in the U.S.A. She’s supported in this claim by Michael Ruse, a Philosopher of Science, who says: “They have an evangelical Christian message”.
Well, this is where the fear that our civilisation is under threat comes in. The ID movement believes that our morals and values are disintegrating, caused by our failure to put a creator at the very heart of education.
How does the debate affect us?
According to a BBC poll, 4 out of 10 people in the UK think that religious alternatives to Darwin’s theory of evolution should be taught as science in schools.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) has for the first time recommended that pupils be taught about atheism and Creationism in RE classes. Pupils will be expected to understand terms such as creation, God as creator of the universe, Intelligent Design, the Big Bang theory, the sacred story and purposeful design.
In March 2006, The Guardian reported that pupils in England will be required to discuss creationist theories as part of a new GCSE biology course. The schools standards minister, Jacqui Smith, said in a parliamentary answer that pupils were encouraged to explore different views, theories and beliefs in many different subjects, including science.
Is this freedom of thought? Or giving air to the unnecessary on school time? Let us know what you think.
Amen – and women
You may take comfort in the bearded Biblical figure. Or you may say absence of proof isn’t proof of absence so there may well be a creator. Or you may say that God is simply the absence of our understanding. After all, when Moses heard God’s voice coming from the burning bush and asked “who’s calling?”, we’re told that God replied: “I am who I am”. In other words, “I can’t be defined”. Or even, “Mind your own business”.
And perhaps we should. Perhaps we should stop trying to dust for His fingerprints. Perhaps the desperate search for proof of faith actually demonstrates a lack of it. Whatever your take on the Creator, you’re entitled to your beliefs. But we keep coming back to the question: is it science?
And the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Ah yes. Well, there’s a third possibility. According to Bobby Henderson, an avidly anti-ID physicist at Oregon State University, there are many people – Pastafarians – who believe that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. He suggests that science lessons be split three-ways: “One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence”. It’s radical, but it might just hold.
Choosing My Religion… by Ian Wild
The source of the current origin belief debate is information packs sent to schools by pro-evolution group Truth In Science. Parents wanting to give their children a purely faith-based education have most often resorted to home schooling, supported by the Worcestershire Parent Partnership Service.
Christian Education Europe is the UK’s principle provider of Christian education material for homeschoolers. The Islamic Homeschooling Advisory Network provides guidance for Islamic homeschooling and also for parents wanting to set up Islamic schools. Worcester’s The River School provides Christian education in a traditional school setting.
…or not
The most powerful pro-evolution voice belongs to Richard Dawkins, whose books The Selfish Gene and its follow-up The Blind Watchmaker, are regarded by scientists as the set texts on evolutionary theory. Radio interview programme Little Atoms has interviews with prominent scientists and authors on the subject of science awareness and is an excellent basis for discussions on faith and rationalism with older children. Parents concerned about the balance in the education their children are receiving are advised to get in touch with their school.
Info depot
Did you know?
Darwin was a regular visitor to the Malverns!
Useful links
Truth In Science
www.truthinscience.org.uk
Christian Education Europe
www.christian-education.org
Islamic Homeschooling Advisory Network
www.islamichomeeducation.co.uk
The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene
Home schooling in Worcestershire (Parent Partnership Service)
http://worcestershire.whub.org.uk/home/wcc-edu-pps
Little Atoms radio programme, recommended:
interview with Dr Ben Goldacre
www.littleatoms.com
