Intelligent Design: Arm Wrestling with Darwin
Unless your head has been super-glued inside a science book, you
have observed the furious debate between proponents of
intelligent design (ID) and supporters of evolution; a debate
that has bounced from courtrooms into opinion pages around the
country. Pointing to the complexity of life on earth, IDers
posit the existence of an intelligent designer and reject the
notion that all can be explained by evolutionary theory.
The issue has become a political tractor with conservatives and
liberals attempting to bulldoze their opponents. Conservatives
hope to acquire the seal of authenticity for their theory of ID,
an accolade that only "fact-based" and "respectable" science can
provide; while the liberals want to protect their turf from what
they see as a religious crusade into the "objective" halls of
learning.
The controversy has emerged in Georgia, Kansas, Arkansas,
Maryland, Missouri and South Carolina, as well as Pennsylvania
where a judge recently ruled that reading a single sentence
about intelligent design in biology class would violate the
Establishment Clause of the Constitution. In California, the El
Tejon Unified School District permanently cancelled a philosophy
class about intelligent design after Americans United for
Separation of Church and State filed a lawsuit.
Religion was once the supreme authority on all matters, but when
the Enlightenment's onslaught of secular ideas swept over the
European continent, it carried away the minds--and sometimes the
hearts--of many who had been devout.
Seventeenth century philosopher Baruch Spinoza rebelled against
traditional Judaism and Christianity, replacing them to a great
extent with the rational and scientifically based metaphysic of
determinism. This metaphysic argues in favor of a mechanistic,
causal universe and is bolstered by scientific findings,
including later Darwinian theory.
In keeping with the prior rebellion against religion, today
there is arguably a rebellion against the new leader called
"science." Kings risk being toppled from their thrones, and ID
has emerged as a weapon to be used against this final arbiter of
"truth."
Why are IDers making their move now? First, it could be said
that science has ventured into "disquieting" areas of study,
such as cloning, transgenetic engineering, cross-species
transplants and stem cell research. There may be an urge to rein
it in with philosophical or theological "wisdom." As Albert
Einstein, a pantheist and disciple of Spinoza, said, "Science
without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Teaching is never value-free, and an omission can convey a
powerful message. When students fail to discuss the ethics of
scientific actions and outcomes, they often end up like my
former, high school classmates: giggling and hurling dissection
specimens across the room, a behavior that conveys lack of
respect for the animals who died and inability to comprehend
that dissection is considered by many to be ethically
impermissible in the first place.
Secondly, science has faltered recently, leaving it vulnerable
to attack by those who hope to depose it. Scientific fraud has
leapfrogged to the public's attention with confessions by Korean
researcher Dr. Hwang Woo Suk, who admitted fabricating cloning
studies for the past two years. Esteemed scientific journals
published his concocted data, and his peers did not question his
work. One journal editor recently stated that scientific error
and dupery occur from time to time, even at leading American
universities, a statement that taints the image of science as
trusted authority.
Thirdly, IDers may feel that any disagreement among prominent
scientists opens the hatch to alternative theories. The
discovery of "spooky" quantum mechanics occurred in conjunction
with a pervasive disillusionment with science and its
fundamental tenet: causality. While some quantum physicists,
such as Einstein, support a deterministic hidden variable
theory, others, such as Werner Heisenberg and Max Born, defend a
framework based on the uncertainty principle. If it is
acceptable to teach opposing theories in quantum mechanics, then
why not let ID arm wrestle with Darwin?
Because words such as "spookiness," "magic" and "trickery" are
associated with the quantum world, one could argue that
mystical, veiled or opaque theories, such as ID, befit the
scientific realm. If quantum strangeness can be taught, why must
intelligent design be expelled?
Lastly, postmodernism--which rejects any form of absolute truth,
even in science--has permeated modern society, and conservative
IDers are embracing it. This is ironic because the "right" has
traditionally embraced the objective and absolute while the
"left" has endorsed the subjective and contextual.
In describing postmodernism, Richard Rorty says, "truth is made
rather than found," and Jean-Francois Lyotard emphasizes the
importance of avoiding totalizing grand narratives and
maintaining an infinite number of perspectives. Darwinian theory
is nothing if not a totalizing grand narrative.
Should ID be allowed to "act up" in science class? Most people
might say yes. According to a 2005 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll on
evolution, 84 percent of Americans believe that God created
humans in their present form or helped guide their development,
while a mere 12 percent say God had no part in the process.
The bouncers in the "12 percent club" guard the door from party
crashers. They look at "fake" ID, saying it is creationism
incognito and that it lacks "real science" credentials. They
announce to the crowd, "If you think it qualifies, you've had
one too many drinks."
They are correct in that intelligent design fails Karl Popper's
falsifiability test; it cannot be proved wrong. ID is
philosophy, not science. But does this mean it should be denied
entry?
I am convinced by the evidence of natural selection and treasure
Darwin's theory because it promotes an interconnectedness of all
living things, but I hold that the intense battle to keep ID out
of the classroom is misguided. The shrill, political feud
between conservatives and liberals has spiraled away from
protecting students and the Constitution into a rendition of
Hannity and Colmes.
Do we lack confidence in our children to evaluate, to separate
evidence from fiction, to interpret for themselves? Sweeping ID
under the rug makes for a huge lump that curious teenagers will
investigate.
What is the resistance to cross-disciplinary study or "big
picture" teaching in which related fields, such as history,
philosophy and biology, are integrated? Math partners with
chemistry; philosophy and ethics could collaborate with all
branches of science. Compartmentalized study may lead to a lack
of synthesis, thus an absence of learning in general.
Why is postmodernism a no-no in science, but a welcome visitor
in other disciplines? No area of study should lose the doubt and
humility that a postmodern filter provides. Theories from the
past have been toppled, and some that are accepted today will be
mocked tomorrow.
Fighting may be inappropriate in school, but arm wrestling,
well, isn't that a fundamental freedom? Now let's roll up our
sleeves and let the theorizing begin.