A lawsuit begins today (Sept. 26) in Pennsylvania challenging the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution in public school science classrooms.
Is this a First Amendment issue? Should teachers be permitted to teach intelligent design as part of their freedom of speech rights? Or is the teaching of intelligent design a breach of the establishment clause of the First Amendment?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Since the theory of evolution remains a theory for which scientists seek empirical evidence in order to prove it or disprove it, it would seem a theory of intelligent design could be presented in the same way, i.e. as a line of scientific speculation and inquiry, without violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
To anonymous ...
The problem is, "intelligent design" is impossible to prove or disprove -- or even scientifically study -- since it presumes a "designer," the existence of which cannot be empirically evaluated. So "intelligent design" fails the basic test of a scientific theory.
It is not science and therefore should not be taught in a science classroom. Teach it in philosophy classes but don't foist it on science teachers.
As for the "scientists" espousing intelligent design, the only one I know of with any credentials is a microbiologist out of the University of Pennsylvania. His argument boils down to a concept he calls "irreducible complexity." In a nutshell, he says that some exceedingly complex natural processes (such as the human eye or the motorboat-like tendrils of certain bacteria) contain components which have no other natural use except as a piece in a complex biological machine and therefore could not have "evolved" from something else. Thus, they must have been "designed."
This concept is a cop out -- a stop sign to further scientific inquiry.
Imagine if 19th century scientists had simply assumed that atoms were "irreducibly complex."
"E" might not equal "MC squared" in our world view. We would never have been able to level a city or power a country with a handful of dirt. We would not have discovered the complex interactions that occur when electrons pass through a wafer of silicon. Particle physics and quantum mechanics would not exist as fields of study. Indeed, the technology revolution of the late 20th century might never have happened.
The scientific method boils down to this:
1) observe
2) theorize
3) experiment
and so on...
We can, for instance, "observe" a bolt of lightning, "theorize" the existence of electrons then tie a key to a kite string to test the validity of our theory.
We also can "observe" a person dying, having been struck by lightning while flying a kite in a thunderstorm, and "theorize" that it was God's will, but how are you going to conduct an experiment to test that theory?
THAT'S the fundamental difference between science and philosophy.
Teach science in science classrooms.
Teach philosophy in philosophy classrooms.
But for God's sake (pun intended), don't get the two mixed up.
This is not a First Amendment issue, nor is it an issue of academic freedom. It's simply a matter of common sense.
The teaching of intelligent design in public schools is a direct violation of the separation of church and state. The ideas behind intelligent design are derived from a religious perspective. Teaching these religious beliefs in public schools, would be imposing certain religious beliefs on the students. This should not be taught as a science. Science is something that has been studied and proved by observation and solid data. Natural selection has been validated as part of science by decades of observations, studies, and experiments. Of course students can believe how they want, based on their own personal religious beliefs. However, lessons dreived from religion should not be taught in public schools. These kinds of lessons should be taught in religious classes through their church, at home, or at a religious private school. In order to uphold the rule of separation of church and state and abide by the First Amendment, religious ideals/classes must be kept out of public institutions.
I feel that its not a first amendment issue to teach intelligent design, such as darwin theory. Teaching a theory, doesn't mean they are forcing students to believe it, they are simply informing them of what some people believe. To not educate children about issues such as darwin's theory, they would be sheltered from the rest of society who do believe in that theory. There are many issues in schools where people feel is inappropriate to be teaching, however if it broadens our horizons I feel its beneficial. I am a Christian and do not believe in darwins theory. I was taught it, I understand it, and I know that others believe it. It has no affect on my religious beliefs. The way to deal with this would be to let the students learn intelligent design and let them decide for themselves if these issues are plausible. This would lead to a less ignorant world.
I feel that its not a first amendment issue to teach intelligent design, such as darwin theory. Teaching a theory, doesn't mean they are forcing students to believe it, they are simply informing them of what some people believe. To not educate children about issues such as darwin's theory, they would be sheltered from the rest of society who do believe in that theory. There are many issues in schools where people feel is inappropriate to be teaching, however if it broadens our horizons I feel its beneficial. I am a Christian and do not believe in darwins theory. I was taught it, I understand it, and I know that others believe it. It has no affect on my religious beliefs. The way to deal with this would be to let the students learn intelligent design and let them decide for themselves if these issues are plausible. This would lead to a less ignorant world.
I am an agnostic that was glad that my instructor's in my first year of high school and then my college professors discussed both sides of the story. It is up to the student's to make up their own minds. I do not think it is a First Amendment issue, I think it is just something that all instructors should do and all students should decide on.
I believe that both sides should be discussed. This way not only are you getting to hear both sides, but if you are undecided it gives you some information on both. Maybe it would actually get people to become a little bit more open minded. Let the students decide what they wanna learn about.
Raymond Montano
Post a Comment