A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
August 30, 2005Is it time to take on intelligent design?As I mentioned recently at The Reaction (see here), Senator John McCain has come out in recent days in support of the teaching of (so-called) intelligent design alongside evolution in America's schools. In so doing, he has aligned himself with President Bush and (insert sarcasm here) no less an enlightened practitioner of modern medicine and defender of the scientific method than Senator Bill Frist — you know, the guy who "diagnosed" Terri Schiavo by videotape and then flip-flopped (over to the right side, thankfully) on stem-cell research. Here's how Frist put it, as reported last week by AP: "I think today a pluralistic society should have access to a broad range of fact, of science, including faith… I think in a pluralistic society that is the fairest way to go about education and training people for the future." Bush himself argued (wrong choice of words, I realize) that including intelligent design in the science curriculum would help people "understand what the debate is about". In response, Howard Dean — doing what he should be doing (i.e., picking apart the opposition, not generalizing and name-calling) — declared that Bush is "anti-science". Note what the proponents of intelligent design — here, the advocates of its inclusion alongside evolution and other scientific theories — are doing. They're arguing that all points of view, all possibilities, all claimants to the truth, even the most absurd, should be considered on an equal basis with one another. Since the truth itself is, it seems, largely indeterminate (except for ardent creationists, who must be willing to go along with intelligent design so as to sneak creationism back into the schools), various "truths" may be put on the table — and into the minds of our children. In short, they — right-wingers all — have become relativists, at least in rhetoric (more on this in a follow-up post). What would Allan Bloom, author of The Closing of the American Mind and the inspirational teacher of my teachers, say? For years, theorists and commentators like Bloom railed against what they saw as the encroaching nihilism brought to America by German and French philosophy, namely, by the followers of Heidegger. And, to a certain extent, they were right, which is why the right, the new Republican Party, has had such success winning the "values" votes. Blue-staters on the coasts and in the urban heartland may be quite comfortable with some of the softened aspects of postmodernism, such as value relativism and multiculturalism, but huge swaths of middle America object, often with good reason, to what is seen as the political supplanting of their theistic and absolute values by the levelling of all values. But this is precisely how intelligent design is being sold. Creationism won't work politically in diverse America, but intelligent design can be brought in as a substitute, as one value among many, as one possible answer to the fundamental questions of existence. Which is precisely why the rhetoric has changed (always look to the rhetoric, for therein lies the political truth). Frist refers to "a pluralistic society," that is, a society with different values, a society without one overarching truth (except, perhaps, the absence of any one overarching truth). And Bush calls for more "debate," as if our children, who would be subjected to this debate on the origins of life, need to consider all possible options before settling on, well, what? Do proponents/advocates of intelligent design hope that the teaching of their theory would be the thin end of the wedge that reasserts creationism? Or will there simply be endless debate? Or are we left with nothing more than infinite possible truths, with pluralism run amok? After all, as Sir Humphrey Appleby says in the great BBC comedy Yes, Prime Minister to the impressionable Bernard Woolley, "anything might be true". That, for now, seems to be where people like Frist are coming from. In the end, I oppose the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution. Science must allow for introspection and self-doubt — and the most of it does — but theories that have no basis in the scientific method have no place in science classes, especially where our children are concerned. But, then, I live in reality. If you don't, and you can't accept that some things are scientifically true and some things aren't, then you might as well tell your children, not to mention yourselves, that life is, say, The Truman Show, or a figment of Bill Gates's imagination, or "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". But here's an interesing suggestion: Over at Slate (see here) Christopher Hitchens — whom, these days, I am usually not one to quote with pleasure — argues that it might actually make sense to allow intelligent design to be taught alongside evolution in the schools, as long as evolution is taught alongside creationism in tax-exempt religious institutions. How could evolution — how could science — lose? If we take the president up on his deceptively fair-minded idea of "teaching the argument," I think we could advance the ball a little further in other directions also. Houses of worship that do not provide space for leaflets and pamphlets favoring evolution (not necessarily Darwinism, which is only one of the theories of evolution and thus another proof of its scientific status) should be denied tax-exempt status and any access to public funding originating in the White House's "faith-based" initiative. Congress should restore its past practice of giving a copy of Thomas Jefferson's expurgated Bible—free of all incredible or supernatural claims—to each newly elected member. The same version of the Bible should be obligatory for study in all classes that affect to teach "divinity." No more Saudi Arabian money should be allowed to be spent in the United States on the opening of jihadist madrasas or the promulgation of a Wahhabi Quran that preaches hatred and contempt of other faiths and of atheism until the Saudi government permits the unmolested opening of Shiite and Sufi places of worship; Christian churches and Hindu temples of all denominations for its Philippine, Indian, and other helot classes; synagogues; and Thomas Paine Society libraries. No American taxpayers' money should be given to Israel unless it can be shown that it is not being used for the establishment of religion by Orthodox messianic settlements in the occupied territories and/or until the Israeli rabbinate recognizes Reform and Conservative Judaism as authentic. He calls it "equal time," and he's got a point. Theories like intelligent design thrive in part (and perhaps mostly) because they're never subjected to rigorous scrutiny. They're so mind-bogglingly stupid, after all, that no serious person, and certainly no reputable scientist, would ever waste much time on them. But this just allows them to fester beneath the surface, acquiring popularity and momentum and eventually emerging, as intelligent design is now, to challenge our accepted (because discovered through the scientific method) truths. So shall we tackle intelligent design? Shall we expose it for what it is? Yes? Well, then, let's find out what John McCain really thinks. I'm sure he's all for having a spirited debate on its merits. (See also fellow blogger PatHMV's thoughtful post on debunking creationism from this past June.) Posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at August 30, 2005 01:15 PMComments
MIchael, do have a citation for McCain supporting ID in science classrooms? I have not seen this. Posted by: bk at August 30, 2005 01:41 PMOne thing that baffles me about this whole debate is how much time is spent teaching evolution in high school anyway? I think I had one year of biology, and we might have spent 1 or 2 days on evolution. We spent weeks, it seems like, on the digestive system of worms. But I like Hitchen's argument. Lets have the public high schools teach Intelligent Design, by all means, just as soon as the churches lose their tax exempt status. I an so tired of the idiocy of this whole thing that I lack the strength to deride the ID proponents. I just hope it's a stupid fad that will get nowhere and eventually just go away. It's disappointing to hear that McCain is pushing this. Posted by: WHQ at August 30, 2005 02:15 PMIt is idiotic, WHQ, but it seems to be gaining momentum, and it may turn out to be far more harmful than just "a stupid fad". Yes, I have the McCain citation. If you click on the first link in my post, you'll get to it via The Reaction. I'd put it here now, but my computer seems to be extremely slow at the moment. It's from an Arizona newspaper, however. Posted by: Michael Stickings at August 30, 2005 02:29 PMCreationism was openly taught in my public high school! In the comparitive religion class. We covered a dozen or so assorted versions, including Sedna cutting off her fingers....there are hundreds of creation myths, dozens among the Native American tribes alone. I'm an equal-time kinda guy, let's teach 'em all! In the comparitive religion classes. But science classrooms are for science. Posted by: Tully at August 30, 2005 02:30 PMI am becoming extremely depressed about this. The pernicious thing about this is that the ID proponents are using the specious argument that this is a matter of being open-minded intellectually. The left is vulnerable on this point because of the way that conservative views are purportedly suppressed or discouraged in the academy. So this argument seems to be advocating a liberal position. But it is not because ID has nothing to do with science. It's as if someone were saying, "let's give the flat earthers equal time so our kids can understand both sides." I have no problem with discussing ID--in church. But not in science class. As I mentioned on Michael's site, the New Republic has an excellent article on the ID craze and a rebuttal to the tenants of ID that evolution is "just a theory." http://tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050822&s=coyne082205 And those that argue that President Bush is not really that socially conservative should reconsider after his comments about ID. Either he really is that conservative or he is cynically playing to his base. Or he lacks the ability to understand and evaluate specious arguments. None of these alternatives are good. Posted by: Marc at August 30, 2005 02:32 PMFYI, Intelligent design is spreading to math as well. See my post at Modo Blog Posted by: fmodo at August 30, 2005 02:34 PMI say go ahead and teach ID...
Alas, there is no "actual theory of Intelligent Design". I'll address this in a post tomorrow or Thursday. I didn't know that ID had already spread to mathematics. Thanks, fmodo. Posted by: Michael Stickings at August 30, 2005 03:15 PMMan, Hitchens stole my joke! LOL. Since ID started getting coverage, I've been saying we should send scientists to church to dispute all sorts of incredible Bible accounts, just to see how the church liked it. I admit to both hoping this idiocy will go away if we stop giving it extra publicity, and worrying that if we don't take it seriously, the priests will take over the halls of science. I am leaning towards the latter, because both the scientific illiteracy and the uncritical credulity of Americans can be occasionally breath-taking. Scientific illiteracy? Check this out: Dr. Miller's data reveal some yawning gaps in basic knowledge. American adults in general do not understand what molecules are (other than that they are really small). Fewer than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century. I am very disappointed in McCain too, BTW. Posted by: bk at August 30, 2005 04:07 PMThe deometry article is satire. The church of the flying spaghetti monster, however, is the real deal: http://www.venganza.org/ Posted by: Henry Woodbury at August 30, 2005 04:08 PMThose who are disappointed with Senator McCain are entitled to be. I haven't read his statement, and I do not need to have done for the remark I have to offer: we need to bear in mind the two axes of centrism, procedural and substantive. Because no candidate will ever always align with the centrist ideology--not least because we centrists have steadfastly refused to define one for public policy purposes--we cannot do as the left and right extremists do and abandon sound candidates simply because they are not fighting with us in every battle. To watch conservatives abandon Rick Santorum because he wouldn't kick Arlen Specter out of the Judiciary Committee chairmanship leaves one shaking one's head. Likewise conservatives abandoning Bil Frist for the moderation of his opposition to embryonic stem cell research. Rather, we must look for and support procedural centrists--those candidates and officials who rely on contemplative introspection to determine their own views on a subject and honestly discuss them, rather than candidates who tailor their "beliefs" according to the audience of the moment. If Senator McCain has a favorable view of Intelligent Design based on an examination of it, and is honestly expressing his favorable view, he remains a procedural centrist worthy of support even if his view disappoints some centrists. If, on the other, his statement seeks to curry favor with conservatives in aid of a bid for presidential nomination, it's merely another example of party politics worthy of scorn (not to mention an example of futility). What's important, I propose, is less the position enunciated in the statement and more the underlying motive for publicizing it. Posted by: The Jaded JD at August 30, 2005 04:32 PMJaded JD, I agree with you in general, but there are some issues in which the substance is too important to ignore. This may be one of them. If McCain cannot distinguish legitimate science from religion, it raises some question as to whether there is any there there. I almost would prefer that he did this cynically; I can accept some degree of pandering in politics more easily than I can accept gross stupidity no matter how sincere. Posted by: Marc at August 30, 2005 04:42 PMI confess a level of ignorance with the details of the Intelligent Design curriculum, but I don't count myself a stupid man and I believe a review of my posts here will confirm my centrist credentials for those unfamiliar with them; nothing that I've heard so far seems to be as repugnant to human reason or scientific progress as some would have me believe. Does anyone have a reference to a (credible) site that presents the Intelligent Design curriculum in bullet points or some similarly condensed form, perhaps highlighting--without embellishing--the points considered most odious? Posted by: The Jaded JD at August 30, 2005 05:07 PMI agree that ID has a political agenda that is closely tied to religion and that it doesn't merit attention in a science class. However, I think we have to remember that support for ID may merely mean that someone believes that God had something to do with life: i.e. a form of theistic evolution. Maybe all McCain is saying is that he feel children ought to realize that the two are not incompatible. But I think it is unfair to characterize openness to intelligent design as "gross stupidity." After all, to evaluate some of the arguments of the IDers requires a fair degree of philosophical sophistication and a good science background. ID is not creationism. I read somewhere that less than 1% of the population has the expertise to determine that a bacterial flagellum was not designed. The question of whether it is at all possible that some sort of designing influence interacted with natural selection is an open one. So I would cut McCain some slack. It really depends on the details of what his proposal would be. If he merely wants to tell children that some scientists think that life needed some designing, what's wrong with that? It's true that some scientists do think that. It just needs to be said that most scientists disagree with them. It's bad PR to get all caught up in a credential fight. That would give them too much credibility. Posted by: Adam at August 30, 2005 05:07 PMI'm open to ID given some scientific evidence--but it's not science unless it's either verifiable or falsifiable utilizing objective measurable criteria. ID isn't. So it's not science. Yes, ID is creationism. It was developed as a "stealth" strategy by the Discovery Institute to introduce creationist doctrines into public schools. Having had their heads beat in by the courts over creationism, they started working on finding a foot that might get in the public-school doors and allow for later expansion. They came up with ID, and gleefully stole the "appeal to diversity of thought" approach from the multi-culti crowd. Posted by: Tully at August 30, 2005 05:55 PMJaded JD, The essence of ID is this: the universe is too complex to have happened via random chance and change. (It helps for this if you have no concept of how long a million years is.) The issue, if this is to be considered science, is: How could it be disproven? For that is the essence of a scientific theory - it makes predictions which, if they fail, disprove the theory. Some ideas simply cannot be disproved. ID looks to be one. Another would be: God created the universe 10 minutes ago, complete with memories, fossils, etc. Could be true: after all, you can't DISprove it. But it ain't science. Well, Tully, if we're going to teach Intelligent Design in school, we should teach Intelligent Math as well. Posted by: Blue Jean at August 30, 2005 09:31 PMTo watch conservatives abandon Rick Santorum because he wouldn't kick Arlen Specter out of the Judiciary Committee chairmanship leaves one shaking one's head.I'd like to be charitable (read, naive) and suggest it's at least partially because they're aware of the strategic value to the pro-life cause of a pro-life democrat demolishing a Republican (because it will offer hungry democrats a tempting road out of the wilderness). However, in the real world, I think that rather unlikely. However, I think people should be cautious before lining up behind Arlen Specter. What looks like independent spirit can also be the stupifying arrogance of a person who presumes that everyone else is wrong. Am I remembering wrong that Specter is the guy who coined the magic bullet theory? On the point at hand, has anybody read Lee Stroebel's "The Case for a Creator", which tackles this topic quite calmly and intelligently? Posted by: Simon at August 31, 2005 12:39 AMBy the way, does anyone recall much scientific basis to political science classes? Much discussion in schools of WHY legitimate government rests on the consent of the government? Much discussion of Hobbes, Locke and other theorists? Or, is it simply assumed - taken on faith, if you will - that democracy is the goal to which we should aspire? Posted by: Simon at August 31, 2005 12:42 AMActually, Simon, I believe it all rests on one of my favorite quotes from Winston Churchill; "Democracy is the worst system ever created--except for everything else that has been tried before." Posted by: Blue Jean at August 31, 2005 01:29 AMJean, Shetterly's post reminds me of the line from that song: We did all our programming in ones and in zeroes We need those zeroes. For my punch-card programming, at least! Posted by: Tully at August 31, 2005 08:15 AMI'm going to look moreminto Mccain's exact views when I have time. In the meantime, I agree with the notion that I'd rather that McCain's position be a tactical maneuver than that it be a genuine belief that ID belongs in science class. As many have mentioned ID is not either methodological or a falsifiable hypothesis, so it's not science. It's faith. I have no problem whatsoever with ID being taught as one of many philosophical views should our public schools choose to delve into philosophy. But it's not science, and I don't really see that as negotiable, subject to diversity of opinion, or admirable simply because it's a view arrived at via some sort of centrist process. Posted by: bk at August 31, 2005 09:15 AMLOL!, Tully! I'll have to look that song up. Poor, deprived souls, running out of zeros--one can say they lacked for nothing. ;-) Posted by: Blue Jean at August 31, 2005 09:57 AMJaded and Adam, I did not mean to imply that you or anyone else is stupid for believing or being open to ID. For all I know, ID (ie, creationism) might be true. What I meant as "gross stupidity" was the idea that ID is science. It is not science, but religion dressed up in disguise. ID advocates try to make it sound like a neutral scientific theory by using technical jargon such as "irreducible complexity." But ID is based largely on a misunderstanding or intentional misinterpretation of the evidence of evolution. The best critique of ID and the best defense of evolution that I have seen is in the New Republic article that I cited in my previous comment. The point I was making is that the IDers, including Bush (and apparently McCain) are trying to make this an issue of intellectual open-mindedness by saying that ID should be taught alongside of evolution. This implies the ID and evolution are both scientific theories that can be evaulated in the same way. That simply is not the case. ID essentially relies on faith--there is no way to prove or disprove it (although the New Republic article presents some evidence that runs counter to the tenants of ID). In theory, one could argue that there ID could be positing a non-theistic creation; for example, life on earth was created by extraterrestrials. But that is clearly not the focus of the movement--it is aimed at persuading people that God created the world as in the Bible. That's fine, but don't teach it in a high school biology class. My point about McCain was that if he really believes that ID is a scientific as opposed to religious theory, he is either pandering to fundamentalists or he has a very limited intellectual understanding of science and of what ID represents. And he has little understanding of the implications of teaching ID in a science class. The point is not whether ID MIGHT be right at some level. Who knows? The point is that it is not what the vast majority of scientists would call a scientific theory. And it is intellectually dishonest because it plays on the general public's lack of knowledge about science in general and evolution in particular to make tendentious attacks. And ID advocates are also playing on the notion that we need to be open to all ideas. That's fine in principle (although I don't really think we want to be open to EVERY idea). And there is nothing wrong with arguing that religion provides a better basis for understanding the world than does science (although I don't think it does personally). But at least have the integrity to admit what the argument is. If McCain and Bush can't recognize that, I find that troubling. Posted by: Marc at August 31, 2005 09:59 AMJean--you can find the complete lyrics here. When I was a boy our Nintendo "When I Was A Boy" by Frank Hayes What I meant as "gross stupidity" was the idea that ID is science. It is not science, but religion dressed up in disguise. Exactly. Which is why it doesn't belong on the science curriculum. Posted by: Tully at August 31, 2005 10:08 AMI tracked through to the article Michael cited, which said this: McCain told the Star that, like Bush, he believes "all points of view" should be available to students studying the origins of mankind. It's not clear from this that McCain actually advocates teaching ID in Science classes. IMO, I thinbk it's a good idea to have all students, public and private, examine what others believe about where we come from. I agree with the notion that there's a place for examining such ideas in our schools. So I'm not putting McCain in the "ID in science class" camp just yet. You know, one of my best science classes in high scool was science & philosophy. In that kind of a curriculum, I don't see where it'd be wrong. Even as a short unit in a regular science class- as long as it is taught as an unproveable IDEA, I have little problem with it. Posted by: Stephanie at August 31, 2005 11:19 AMMe neither. My sense, though, is that ID proponents want it taught in science as an alternative explanation of equal scientific merit as evolution. Posted by: bk at August 31, 2005 02:18 PMwi, "The essence of ID is this: the universe is too complex to have happened via random chance and change. (It helps for this if you have no concept of how long a million years is.) The issue, if this is to be considered science, is: How could it be disproven? For that is the essence of a scientific theory - it makes predictions which, if they fail, disprove the theory." Can macro-evolution be proven or dis-proven? We don't have any fossil evidence of it, but science doesn't think that it has been disproven because of the small percentage of fossil records that we have found. So, using your definition of 'science' should it be taught as science? Posted by: deb at August 31, 2005 03:17 PMTully, Thanks! I remember that song now. My Apple brother thought it was hilarious, and so do I. :-)' While I'm all for competing ideas in the classroom, allowing ID to be taught alongside evolution is a bit like teaching flat earthism alongside the usual physics, or spontanous generation alongside basic biology; it may be fair, but it ain't right. Posted by: Blue Jean at August 31, 2005 03:31 PMDeb, I don't agree that we don't have evidence of macro-evolution. According to the New Republic article (written by a biologist), there are numerous examples in the fossil records of organisms that no longer exist and that have evolved into more advanced organisms. I assume that is what you mean by macro evolution. It is simply incorrect to say that there is no evidence for the tenants of evolution. The problem is that the ID proponents require a level of proof that can never be met while not requiring the same level of proof for their own ideas. I am by no means an expert on evolution. But my impression is that none of the arguments by IDers attacking evolution would hold up to fair-minded people if they knew the evidence. Posted by: Marc at August 31, 2005 04:58 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
