In the previous blog, I indicated that I believe that Intelligent Design (ID) is not science. I do believe it is not, but Alexander George, professor of philosophy at Amherst College (See Christian Science Monitor, December 22, 2005, page 9)says there is a problem with that argument. It requires that we be able to draw a line between science and non-science, and he indicates this is difficult to do. However, if ID is "science," then is not astrology also a science? If one is allowed, would the other also be allowed? Where would this stop? I hope that we can teach the best, modern ideas of science in our classrooms. We owe nothing less to our children. I very sincerely believe that ID is a religious idea. I hope that those who wish to do so, teach it and discuss it well where it should be taught and discussed, in the church. I believe that, as a religious idea, it should not be taught in public schools because of the requirement of the separation of church and state, a fundamental part of our constitution.
There is another important part of this story. A number of parents were unhappy with the Dover school board which mandated the injection of ID in science classes, and that is what led to the court case. Perhaps the court is not the best place to make this sort of decision. I note that the Dover community, though perhaps divided, voted out the members of the school board in the November election, and there is now a new board. So far, I have heard nothing to indicate that the new board is opposed to the ruling of the court.
Finally, I am quite sure that this case, though perhaps important, certainly will not stop the controversy.
1 comment:
You know where I come down on this, but I cant resist an additional comment.
I dont see any way ID can be considered "science". ID has not been subjected to any of the rigors of the scientific method; no experiments or predictions that might be tested have been suggested. By and large, it has not been subjected to peer review. I dont know how one would advance a "null hypothesis" in the field of ID, and how it might be tested and data collected and analyzed using statistical analysis. How can it be science, when the premise, is that life is so complicated, that it can not be explained by any rational basis without including a supernatural force?
ID is not science.
Post a Comment