illuminating science

In a court case which I hope is being watched by every self-respecting scientist, one of the main proponents of intelligent design has conceded that if his definition of a “scientific theory” is accepted, then astrology would have to be considered a valid theory too.

Intelligent design (ID) says the evolution was not a random process of natural selection, but in fact a guided process by some sort of “higher being”. It’s considered to be a “compromise” betweeen creationism (the world was created by a “higher being”) and Darwinian evolution (random genetic mutations that give the creature an advantage are more likely to be passed on to the next generation, and hence preserved).

Although in its strictest form it doesn’t state who the “higher being” actually is, it’s almost always considered to be the Christian God, and is being pushed strongly by Christian fundamentalists who realise that Creationism is a lost cause, but still want God in the picture. Many (mots?) people, however, acknowledge that ID really isn’t anything more than creationism in disguise (at least when the “7 days” is interpreted more liberally…) In fact, it was revealed that a recent and very popular pro-Intelligen Design book “Of Pandas and People” was in a previous draft actually advocating creationism, and when this fell out of favour, the word “creationism” was simply replaced by “intelligent design” in the text!

This latest court battle is a result of a school in the U.S. agreeing to teach ID (intelligent design) in addition to evolution in high school biology: effectively putting ID on the same scientific footing. A group of parents took them to court, saying it was just a sly attempt to teach religion, and indeed creationism, in the name of science (U.S. law says that no religion may be taught at public schools.) and hence this landmark case - is ID a valid “scientific theory” that should be taught in schools? The outcome of this case will have far reaching reprecussions, which may reach beyond just schools.

What follows is my two cents - some of it will be a little controversial, as any discussion of religion and science tends to be, so take it all with a grain of salt. Basically, I think teaching intelligent design in schools is horrifying. In some ways it’s worse than creationism, since any sensible person can refute that, whereas it’s subtler to see why ID is at best unnecessary (evolution works - we don’t need a guiding power to explain life) and at worst just plain wrong (can’t really prove that!). In some ways, if you want to believe that there was a guiding force, well, that’s fine - I don’t think it’s necessary, and it kind of goes against evolution, but each to their own. Even if you want to include that in some sort of course on spirituality, which describes the beliefs and opinions of various religions, that’s okay too - as long as it’s presented in the right way, it’s educational.

But given that in this case, and in many others, the school board is made up of evangelical Christians with an agenda to push, this seems like nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to push religion in schools. I’m a strong believer that religion has no place in schools unless it’s giving students the necessary information to make an informed decision. Personally, I’m spiritual but not religious. Some of the teachings of Buddhism are quite appealing (go the Dalai Lama!) and I like the ideals of the Celestine Prophecy - a good guide to life, even if not true in the literal sense. I just don’t feel the need for the dogma and structure of religion in my day to day life. I’m a (reasonably) moral sort of guy as it is, and I refuse to take things for granted without good evidence. I’m just too argumentative. Note I don’t have anything against Christians - the religion doesn’t appeal to me personally, but that’s an individual choice.

Anyway, the bottom line is that science needs to be free from religious influence (just think of Galileo!). It doesn’t preclude scientists being religious, or visa versa. But as scientists, we need to be free make statements that might go against popular opinion or belief. And, we need to produce students who are free from prejudices and appreciate the scientific method that serves us so well.