Like most sound-minded Americans, I stand in awe of this newly hatched scheme THEY call "Intelligent Design." But it's becoming clear to me that there are two distinct parts to this movement, and the more harmless sounding one is the one we should be worried about.
The core "theory" behind intelligent design is just a more sanitized version of the creationism pill they've been trying to get us to swallow for years. After reading several explanations of the theory, I think it can best be described as: "Dude, the world is, like, so complex, there must have been some super dude that created it all." The notion is so anti-scientific in its reasoning, I just don't see it as a serious threat to our national sanity. If anything, it's the last salvo of the extreme Christian right to force their origin story on the general public.
But there's something more covert in these intelligent design arguments. The theory itself is being swept under the rug as proponents play the "all points of view should be taught" card. It's a clever way to throw the pluralists own arguments back in their faces. George W. employed the tactic during his recent, highly-publicized remarks. Despite some reports that Bush layed alms at the altar of intelligent design, all he really said was "I think part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes." It sounds harmless, but it's not.
Many Americans still hold deeply racist beliefs. That does not mean that their opinions, based solely in bigotry, should be taught as an "alternative" during a history lesson on the civil rights movement. But that's the logical extension of this intelligent design rhetoric. The fact that so many Americans believe in some kind of God means that belief has a place in society, not necessarily in a science class. Bringing intelligent design into a science class doesn't introduce an alternative scientific theory, it introduces an alternative to science. It's the equivalent of a math teacher saying "Don't believe in geometry? Try sociology."
Or what about a lesson on ghosts? Most people believe in ghosts, so why not follow a lesson on human physiology with a lesson on ghosts? "Okay, now that we're done talking about mitosis, who knows how to kill a Wolfman?"
As someone currently teaching middle and high school students, I can also say that this argument is completely impractical. There's a reason that Comparative Religion classes are taught in college, even then at the 300 or 400 level. Middle and High School students don't generally have the intellectual maturity to juggle these concepts. The average high school student is able only to follow a basic chain of causality, with an understanding that there is more than one point of view. They work hard to grasp concepts like evolution from just the scientific standpoint, let alone some other paradigm.
There's a big difference between being open-minded to all viewpoints and demanding your viewpoint is presented in every situation. If you want to believe something akin to intelligent design, fine, more power to you. That's what Sunday School is for. But if you want your religious beliefs presented in every class, including science and P.E., that's what home schooling or Utah are for.
No comments:
Post a Comment