Intelligent Design in Science Classes? Really?
Note:
Since I believe in keeping religion out of curriculum with every ounce of my conscience, I encourage those who disagree with me with every ounce of theirs to forgive me my faulty premises, assumptions, and blatant propagandizing.
As I sit through the break during [unspecified class], I find myself compelled to post my thoughts regarding a conversation we had in class. By some digression, the conversation moved from how to deal with contentious issues within a large discussion, to the nature of “faith” (framed in Christian terms such as “church,” of course, rather than religiously neutral ones). Waking up in within the conversation I, like Dante, found myself in a wood so dark, I would descend into the darkest substrata of my subconscious (or hell) to avoid navigating it. Eventually, though, I reemerged and found I finally had a comment to contribute. I advocated for a distinction between religiously contentious issues and academically contentious ones in large discussions, concluding ultimately that it is not the province of public schools to provide a forum for religious discussion. Crudely paraphrased, [unspecified person] replied, “That’s true, unless of course, state and local legislation requires you to, such as intelligent design becoming part of science curriculum.” I wanted to say “what about for a teacher that opposes religion in public schools as zealously as some people argue for it and would consider a career change before helping to manifest such a vision of ‘education.’” Obviously, I didn’t. I knew this person wasn't advocating for it but merely suggesting that I remain cognizant of the possibility it could happen. Still though, I couldn't stifle my visceral reaction to that possibility, hence the spewing forth that is this posting.
To start, I will acknowledge my limitations when it comes to awareness of current events. I remember some nonsense within the past few years about interest groups advocating that intelligent design become part of science curriculum. If I recall correctly, the basis of their argument was that the theory of evolution attempted to account for the origin of the human species and that to be pluralistic and "balanced," intelligent design deserved a place beside it. Anybody feel free to correct me if I misrepresented their argument. All I remember was chuckling at the way this whole mess was satirized by depictions of intelligent spaghetti monsters and such. However, I never thought the ridiculousness could have made it any further than this. Has it?! Are some districts really teaching intelligent design?
Somebody please tell me “No, Ben. This isn’t happening,” because if it is happening, I’m done here folks. I will not work in a state that allows intelligent design to be a part of the curricula of its schools. I oppose this as zealously as many advocate for it. And, I’d like to be clear: I’m not basing my position (solely) on the idea of separation of church and state. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a great idea but, for the purposes of this posting, I’ll take for granted the argument many critics of my position frequently make: that separation of church and state “language” doesn’t appear in the Constitution but in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists. Let’s also assume the veracity of the argument that the idea is not in any way mentioned or implied within the first amendment, bill of rights, or any other part of the constitution. I’ll try to limit my separation of church and state tirade to this: I’m still more inclined to listen T.J. when it comes to the philosophical foundations of a functioning democracy than Pat Robertson, or almost any one else, theologian or otherwise.
Even if separation of church and state is not stipulated by the Constitution, where in the text does it guarantee religion, specifically Christianity, unchallenged hegemony over all other societal institutions? Is nothing secular sacred? A public school is not a church nor should it ever be. A church is a church.
I’d like to be clear that I’m not arguing against creationism, intelligent design, or the rights of people to believe in them. It’s ludicrous, however, to argue under the guise of “intellectual pluralism” for the place of a religious idea in the curricula of any class, let alone a science class. Intelligent design is not scientifically founded, at least no more so than scientific findings are rooted in faith. Would any proponent of the "intelligent design in school argument" agree to have the theory of evolution taught as a faith-founded religious doctrine in their children’s Sunday school?
And whose creation story do we have to teach? Whose do our students have to learn? I’m not sure to what degree the concept of intelligent design is religiously unaffiliated, but are the people who argue for its inclusion in school curricula unaffiliated? How are they going to ensure a religiously pluralistic discussion of intelligent design, especially when there are religions that have little or nothing to say about creation? Do they even feel like they need to ensure this pluralism? The day my son or daughter has to write a paper on the “theory” of intelligent design is the day we relocate to Europe.
This tirade is becoming more and more self-indulgent and, since I’m not adding anything to the discourse on this topic, I’ll distill the remainder of what I wanted to say to this:
I WILL NOT TEACH IT!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Yea!
I am glad I am not the only person thinking about this. In fact, from what I have heard, there are several places where a teacher might be required to teach the subject as a topic. I was reading about it on one of those EduBlogs:
http://ozymandias1.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/science-evolution-and-creationism-again/
Scary stuff.
I think I would probably be finding another job as well, but if I knew how to teach both while making certain the students understood exactly what a "scientific theory" was and what the specific differences between the two are (coming from a specific science background).
But honestly, the whole topic kind of freaks me out. Then again, so does poetry.
(-:
Ben, you make some very interesting points in your blog. Unfortunately, no I can't tell you that intelligent design has been booted from the classrooms. I have heard a lot of varying arguments for this such as ignoring it would be pretending religion doesn't exist and therefore discriminating all those kids (regardless of denomination/faith) who come from religious backgrounds. Also, we had to debate teaching this in my evolution class in college and I was surprised by the arguments the intelligent design side made.
I would encourage you to keep exploring this issue because balancing religion and teaching is sure to be quite an issue for all of us.
I can see you sneaking around science classrooms at night posting signs like, "Abandon all hope, all ye who enter here".
Ok Ben, but what if intelligent design isn't presented as part of the curriculum in science, but explored as a cultural trend in, say, a social studies or even language arts class?
Your striking questions, "Would any proponent of the 'intelligent design in school argument' agree to have the theory of evolution taught as a faith-founded religious doctrine in their children’s Sunday school? And whose creation story do we have to teach? Whose do our students have to learn?" are a nice way to address the debate over curriculum. Actually, in my religious education classes (outside of school), we did learn about the "theory of evolution" (of course, to show the holes in it).
I don't know if this coincides with your opinion or not, but I think science and religion must be compatible for persons of faith, but public school is not responsible for negotiating that relationship. That's what independent thought, religious education (extracurricular, or curricular, in the case of a private religious school) and family discussions are for.
Part of the reason this has become such a contentious issue, I think, is that religious parents are frustrated with public schools openly teaching material that opposes their family's basic beliefs or traditions. And that's tough, because it make religious people want to flee from public schools in hoards.
WOW! Was that a "violent and visceral" response you just had to intelligent design? :)
Unfortunately it is really true that intelligent design is taught in many classrooms. I'm from Missouri where I managed to never learn about evolution, but definitely had a physics teacher explain that (don't worry) physics didn't contradict Genesis. Awesome?!?
For a lot of people, science is a kind of faith too, one that requires people to suspend belief or common sense and just follow the laws. I'm not excusing it, but I just think that sometimes, as teachers, we have to appreciate that even VERY smart people believe in creationism and intelligent design.
First of all, I am a practicing Catholic and I strive to be as observant of Church law as I can. Second, I completely agree with you.
The goal of a science classroom is (at least ostensibly) to teach SCIENCE. Intelligent Design has, as you have said, no foundation in science. I believe that the movement started as a way for some Christians to "legitimize" their belief in Creationism scientifically. To me, this is a detriment to both faith and science. Science is not (or should not be) based on tenets of faith that cannot be proven. Most of my beliefs can never be scientifically proven, and to say that they can be fully explained by science is, in my view, heresy.
I believe, as did Pope John Paul II the Great, in "theistic evolution." Evolution is the mechanism by which God raised humanity from the "primordial ooze" - we are the pinnacle of His creation design, in His image and likeness. But that is a position that should be advocated in religious education classes, not in science classes. I am satisfied that a science teacher who expects his or her students to learn the theory of evolution while never forcing them to make a judgment call about its moral validity has done the job right.
I agree with Katie that religion and science must be compatible for people of faith, but public school is not the place for the faithful to figure that out. As John Paul the Great said, "Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes." God gave man the gift of reason, so any use of that reason does not lead man back to God is being used erroneously.
Intelligent Design is not science, nor is it reason, and I find it to be insulting as both a Catholic and an academic.
I won't teach it either.
Perhaps my comment will be superfluous after the previous five. But I will add my two cents all the same. I think that we should be conscious of the fact that evolution has a tendency to tread on tenuous ground. Empirical science is based on observable phenomena in nature. It can show correlations between physical occurrences. However, it is much less adept at showing causality. For example, we can observe a ball falling when dropped. We can observe this in every instance anywhere on earth. We call the cause of this phenomenon "gravity," but the scientist knows no more than the theologian what the real cause of this was. For all we know, angels could be making every ball all over the world drop in the same way.
Evolution also shows correlations. It gathers all sorts of physical evidence from artifacts of living things and tries to construct a causal chain all the way back to the beginning of time, based on probable correlations between species alive and species long dead (I speak on the macro scale, not micro). But therein lies the problem - that it strays outside of observable data in order to draw probable conclusions that have implications for the history and origins of man. Scientifically, it is an unprovable theory (in terms of causality), if only because it attempts to account for historical progressions and trends, which is outside its domain of observable data.
I am not posting to necessarily argue against evolution's validity as a theory, but rather pointing out the philosophical and theological implications that it has. Scientists have certainly not been shy about proclaiming their atheistic proofs based on evolution. I think that it is understandable, then, that theists feel threatened by such a theory. Hence Intelligent Design.
If I.D. is not scientifically based, then it shouldn't be in the science classroom. However, evolution should be offered as a theory, and not as the definite answer to human origins or human nature. I think, then, that we should see the very real limits of science, and also recognize the importance of other "sciences," such as philosophy, natural theology, history, etc., that also have something to say about "objective" truth, and reality.
In high school, my science teacher made sure that our interests were piqued with a number of different ideas on the subject. As a teacher (ironically not of science)it seems that students should be exposed to as much as possible. Who cares if it is real or not, if someone says it should or shouldn't be taught or if it's some ridiculous theory created by someone who doesn't know much. As much as this may sound like Charlie Peters, we want students to be life-long learners and by presenting the ideas and allowing them to choose, educators can ignite the inquisitive nature that is so important. Please don't misunderstand me, I am not saying Intelligent Design should be taught as fact but I think it should be presented to students.
I agree with you about how religion (or intelligent design) don't really belong in public school. However, I can think of some instances in which if I'm told to teach it, I would. I would do my research and show why some people believe it (or really want to believe it), and all of the holes in the "theory" (I think I can do this objectively). I would teach it along side the "theory" of the spaghetti monster and let the kids make their own decision. I would, of course, teach evolution as well. I would show all of the evidence supporting it, what theory means in scientific terms (it is much more powerful than in lay terms), and how regardless of all of the evidence we can't go back in time to PROVE it is true. Frankly, I think knowledge is power. I think that it is better for kids to know the facts, rather than to be persuaded to believe something because they lack an opposite view. I think it is important to teach kids to use their reasoning abilities to make their own decisions. Especially kids who live in communities where there is consensus on unfounded theories, I think it is important to plant a seed of doubt in their minds, and we can't do this by simply ignoring it.
Post a Comment