THE ONION once wrote a column in which it reported that certain faith-based organizations were questioning the "theory of gravity," instead favoring a new theory of Intelligent Falling -- that things are pushed down, not by gravitational force per se, but by the invisible hand of a higher intelligence. The piece sarcastically demolishes the arguments of intelligent design by way of showing the emptiness of "intelligent" science.
Unfortunately, a precocious school district in Pennsylvania prefers to mix science with religion -- ironically, without any intelligence whatsoever.
Eight families have sued the Dover, Penn. School Board to have a mention of intelligent design removed from ninth-grade biology class lessons on evolutionary theory. The disclaimer, read before beginning lessons on evolution, warns that Darwin's theory is not entirely factual and has unexplainable "gaps" in its reasoning.
We should not teach lies and superstition under the guise of science. And that is exactly what "intelligent design" proposes -- religious myth grounded in nothing but, well, nothing.
To teach that sort of nonsense in the same breath as scientifically supported theory cheapens legitimate science and elevates religious dogma to an undeserving level above lies and fatuous presumption.
This resurgence of "creationism lite" into classrooms proves that a bit of Madison Avenue acumen can make even the most ridiculous bundle of mistruths seem downright "intelligent."
To be fair, why shouldn't "intelligent design" be presented as a way of "teaching the argument," as President Bush phrased it? After all, healthy debate is the watchword for a liberal arts education, and why not teach it as a potential alternative?
Most students initially encounter Darwin as a hero of both history and biology -- when he and his trusty ship Beagle ventured to the Galapagos to unravel the mystery of the evolving finch. Darwin curiously observed the indigenous finch population on the island and concluded that they seemed to evolve by a process he deemed "natural selection." In the true spirit of science, he formulated a question, collected data and drew a conclusion from that data.
Darwin's views were met with immense skepticism and contempt at the time, as all revolutionary ideas are, but they withstood the ferocious criticism of his colleagues thanks to his meticulous scientific method (and truth, by the way).
On the other hand, intelligent designers tend to prefer solipsism to science. Most people's first encounter with intelligent design is either in church or on paid programming at 3:00 a.m.
Intelligent design submits to no verification or logical criticism. Rather than follow the scientific method, intelligent design proposes a question -- the same one as Darwin, in fact. But unlike Darwin, IDers move from question to conclusion, and then they desperately search to find data to support it. Conveniently for them, some people had already written a book instructing them how everything worked.Darwin had to write his own.
To claim that "intelligent" design is even a theory would be akin to calling the "you will get pregnant if you walk over the 'Z' on Ruffner Bridge" adage sound gynecological advice.
The collision of opposing ideas only benefits education when the ideas are grounded in logic. Truth emerges when dogma and superstition are combated by reason and rationality. For students to hear a nebulous statement that "the truth is out there," before opening their biology textbooks insinuates that the truth, in fact, isn't out there. It supposes that this unfounded truth cannot be found in textbooks -- except one.
A fundamental tenet of science in general is that the truth is out there. It may not be apparent now, and it may never be. But to propose, without verification, that the answers lie with some supernatural power defies the very charge of science -- to explore the natural realm, for truth, with truth.
In an underhanded attempt to appear fair-minded, religious organizations are poisoning American education with pseudo-science and then they have the gall to ask for "a fair exploration of the truth."
Truth isn't advanced by demonstrating that some people choose to abandon reason altogether and believe in authoritarian nonsense. Teaching "intelligent" design or creationism alongside sound scientific theory does nothing but advance the cause of systematic ignorance and idiocy.
Hopefully this trial in Pennsylvania will help banish religion to its proper place in church, not biology classrooms. In light of current debate, one cannot help but wonder, if this universe had been intelligently designed, why are so many of its advocates so unintelligent?
Dan Keyserling's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at dkeyserling@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | 2 days agoForcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | 3 days agoAs people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoWe hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
