“There is a strong Washington Post editorial that takes a fairly critical look at the recent behavior of Kansas in reviewing the educational, scientific validity of the Theory of Evolution”:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/07/AR2005050700943.html.
I am fairly fond of this framing of the hypothesis of “intelligent design”:
Intelligent design is not your parents’ creationism. It’s a slick set of talking points that are not based on biblical inerrancy but framed, rather, in the language of science: molecular biology, the structure of DNA and holes in the fossil record. Moreover, the ostensible justification for the changes is a seductive one. Proponents say they mean merely to ensure that schoolchildren are given a full sense of the scientific controversy over evolution so that they can make up their own minds. Who can object to that?
But there is no serious scientific controversy over whether Darwinian evolution takes place. Intelligent design is not science. Whatever its rhetoric, the public questioning of evolution is fundamentally religious, not scientific, in nature. That is not to say that wonder is illegitimate; it is a perfectly reasonable response to the beauty and enormity of the universe to believe that it could not have happened without a divine hand. But the proper place to discuss such belief is not the public schools. Biology classes need to be taught with sensitivity to the religious sensibilities of students but not by casting doubt on evolution.
I am particularly moved by the succintness with which the author makes their point. “Intelligent design” is not science, it is speculation. Nearly all criticism of the Theory of Evolution is based in religious motivation, not hard scientific fact. The article closes with some of the most pointed writing I have seen so far on this matter in Kansas:
Evolution is a reality, no matter how much people may object to it. And denying or downplaying its importance to any serious examination of the biological sciences ill serves students who may wish to know how bacteria become resistant to drugs, how birds and dinosaurs are related, or why dolphins and sharks share certain morphological traits. How people reconcile their religious convictions with scientific reality is a matter for places of worship, not for science classrooms – or state boards that set standards.
