May 2, 2008
Intelligent Design as an Academic-Freedom Issue
Jonathan Adler, at The Volokh Conspiracy, responds to the idea of Intelligent Design teaching as an academic-freedom issue. Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, writes:
There is nothing scientific about these “alternatives” to evolution. Encouraging attacks on evolution in high school science classes promotes academic fraud not “academic freedom.” If school boards or state legislatures want public school students to be exposed to competing theories about the origins of life — a question evolutionary theory does not address — they should do it in a world religion or social studies class and leave science alone.Alex Kafka | Posted on Friday May 2, 2008 | Permalink
Comments
Previous: Rev. Wright's Wrong Turn?
Next: An Economist Volunteers to Shill for Clinton's Gas-Tax Cut
Mr. Adler is correct in asserting that evolution does not directly treat the origins of life and that said topic should be given its due under another umbrella. Intelligent Design has no scientific merit—the fact that over 99% of all life on the planet has vanished should attest to rather unintelligent design. All of the landmark cases brought to light by the proponents of ID—from the design of the cell wall to the “intelligent” complexity of the eye—have been refuted by study after study, all backed by hard evidence that is testable. I imagine Michael Behe himself is probably still reeling from the backhand given to him by Judge Jones in the Dover trial.
— Darren Aversa May 2, 11:58 AM #
If you are interested in this debate, you might check out our interview with Jay Labov from the National Academy of Sciences about their new publication on evolution and creationism. You can find it at: http://www.freeexchangeoncampus.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=975&Itemid=72
— Craig Smith, Free Exchange on Campus May 2, 03:46 PM #
Dr. Adler is correct and I encourage all intelligent citizens to stave off the ID attack. One way to do so is to refuse to label this fraudulent attack on science as a “debate”. God help us, please!
— Edward Michael Caner May 2, 09:58 PM #
A good place to begin the presentation of evolution to students
is to use the book:
Evolution Exposed
…
an “illustrated exposé (that) reveals and refutes every instance of evolution in America’s most popular biology textbooks. A true eye-opener for teens, teachers and parents.”
Evolution Exposed
can be read on-line at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee
— JosephU May 3, 07:07 PM #
There is nothing intelligent about intelligent design. The thing that is so obvious about creationists and intelligent designers is that they are flogging a political agenda. The agenda is that they do not want science taught in schools. Creationism and ID gets you nowhere – the obvious conclusion to draw from it is the the world is the way it is because god did it and so is not amenable to rational analysis. Artistotle pointed out a rather long time ago that the first assumption we make in scientific studies is that the world is comprehensible by the human intellect. If you cannot accept that proposition science is pointless and we are back to supernatural explanations of the way the world works.
Take a look at what ID has achieved – The BIOLOGIC Institute front page is nice but there is nothing behind it – quite literally. They have not produced anything. BIOLOGIC seems to have closed down immediately after the website front page was constructed. Look at the great science the DISCOVERY Institute produces: descriptive science only no predictive value at all. The CREATION Museum material is a hoot.
Creationism and ID makes america the laughing-stock of the western world. Australians generally laugh at it as a preverse american import; as believable as televangelists. However, we cannot be too smug – we know from surveys that about 20% of students in Biology 1 at universities like the University of Sydney say they accept creationism. Some colleagues find it depressing, but maybe they say it just to upset us.
— Raymond J. RITCHIE May 4, 09:39 AM #
Thank you JosephU – I found your link helpful. I hadn’t realized that ID accepted some evolution:“Evolution can be used in the sense of change in a species by natural selection. This is often referred to as microevolution and is accepted by evolutionists and creationists alike as good observational science. This type of evolution allows change within groups but not between groups. “ There were definitely some interesting points made in ‘Evolution Exposed’
— Allison May 5, 09:35 AM #
Magic is never about the rabbit; rather, it is about the empty hat.
——Prof. Higgsfield
— first marci May 5, 05:45 PM #
IMO if you are an institution teaching from a basis of science, you will not be teaching intelligent design. There is no way to support it from a basis of science. If you’re teaching from a basis of faith, then ID could easily fit.
— Al May 6, 05:05 PM #