Intelligent Design Debate
Volume 19 | Issue 4 | 6 | Feb. 28, 2005
Issue Contents | Next
Editorial | Intelligent Design and Informed Debate
By Richard Gallagher, Editor
The current frenzied attack on the teaching of evolution in
public schools in school boards across the United States is to
be welcomed.
There, I've said it. And no, I'm not a fundamental Christian, a
creationist, or a right-wing ideologue. What I am is someone who
sees an outstanding opportunity to exchange views with the
naysayers, and a rare public examination of a set of ideas that
are pretty much taken as Gospel – sorry for the blurring of
metaphors, but it drives home my point – by us in the scientific
community. Played the right way, everyone – yes, including
scientists – should come out enriched by the interaction.
For those who haven't been following developments, here's a
précis: Conservative forces, likely buoyed by the recent
election, are applying pressure on the science education system
to adopt the teaching of a theory called "Intelligent Design."
The nub of intelligent design is that Earth and particularly the
life on it are much too complex to have evolved; simply, it must
be the work of an intelligent creator.
The squeeze is on in legislatures and school boards in at least
18 states, from Alabama to Alaska. The movement is even becoming
a US export to the United Kingdom, according to a story on page
12 of this issue.
Opponents have two possible responses. The dominant one is
something close to panic: fear that a generation will be
brainwashed into accepting intelligent design and that science
itself is under threat throughout the country. That response
results in avoiding the topic altogether and refusing to debate.
In fact, some scientists regret using words such as "design" in
published studies, for fear it will be used by
intelligent-design advocates (see p. 12).
The other response is to accept the challenge and rise to it,
even to relish it. That's the approach I would urge, and here's
why:
• It's rare to have a full-blooded public debate about the
school curriculum. And one about the science curriculum is as
rare as rocking-horse droppings. We should play it for all it's
worth, bringing a clearer sense of evolution to a wide
cross-section of the population.
• While some of the commentary, with headlines such as
"Religious right fights science for the heart of America,"1
suggests that the heart of America is some kind of science
utopia, this could hardly be further from the truth. With the
exception of isolated pockets of excellence, the heart of
America could do well with engaging a lot more with science, and
this is a chance to make headway. Debates can be won as well as
lost!
• At the level of the students who are, after all, the
principles in all this, the study of different explanations for
the diversity of life on Earth will make science class more
compelling. Clyde Herreid talks on page 10, in this issue's
Opinion, about the need for science teaching to connect to the
first-hand experiences of students. The evolution-intelligent
design debate will fire the interest of bright kids who will see
through the paper-thin arguments being set out to discredit
evolution.
There is one caveat, and it's a big one: The topics must be
taught on a level playing field. Full information on evolution
and on intelligent design must be supplied, and there must be no
further pressure on curricula or teachers. Given this, I'm in
little doubt that the open-minded students of the heart of
America will see the strength of evolution as a theory.
In addition, scientists should go out of their way to support
their local high-school science teachers to present the case for
evolution. Scientists must propose their case to as wide an
audience as possible. This includes commercial television news,
a medium of which scientists have been skeptical.2 Let's get out
there and argue!
References
1.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1407171,00.html
2. E Augenbraun "Weapon of mass attraction," Nature 433: 357-8.
[Publisher Full Text] Jan. 27, 2005
http://www.the-scientist.com/2005/2/28/6/1
Ian Pitchford PhD CBiol MIBiol
http://human-nature.com/ep/
<< Home