HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Aug. 9, 2005 Last week, President Bush stepped feet first into the debate between Darwinian evolution and “intelligent design”, saying both should be given equal standing in the nation’s science classrooms. Since evolution is backed by mountains of evidence and is accepted as fact by virtually all scientific professionals, the president’s science adviser, John Marburger, was forced into a quick and embarrassing retreat. “Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology,” he said, and “intelligent design is not a scientific concept.” Nevertheless, Bush’s conservative religious base was thrilled. Intelligent design (ID) arose from the ashes of the young-earth biblical creation movement of the early 1900s. As scientific knowledge expanded and the evidence became overwhelming that the Earth is billions of years old, not 6,000 as a literal reading of Genesis implies, these young-earth creationists were forced to abandon their dogmatic beliefs for fear of appearing plainly foolish. They needed to “evolve”, and ID was born. ID proponents acknowledge that the Earth is much older than a literal reading of the Bible suggests, and they admit that organisms adapt and change over time. What they dispute is the idea that the enormous complexity and diversity of life as it exists today could have evolved from primeval simplicity. The only solution, they believe, is some kind of purposeful design by an unnamed intelligence. ID is described as a new and sophisticated attempt at introducing creationism into schools, but it is the same argument put forth over two-hundred years ago by the 18th-century theologian William Paley. Just as a wanderer on a beach who happened upon a watch in the sand would conclude that the watch was too complicated and functional to have sprung into existence by accident, Paley argued, so too should we conclude that living organisms, far more complex than the watch, could not possibly have formed naturally and must therefore have been purposefully designed. Paley’s divine watchmaker “theory” was nothing but an exercise in intellectual laziness, attributing to “god” that which was hard to understand at the time. Nevertheless, the scientific community had no rebuttal to it until 50 years later, when Charles Darwin showed everyone the beautiful and powerful simplicity of evolution by natural selection. Today, his discovery is recognized by the scientifically literate as one of the crowning achievements of human thought. When it comes to explaining life’s complexities, Darwin showed us there is no longer a need to punt to God. And yet, Darwin’s detractors are more numerous and vocal than ever, including, now, our president. “I feel like both sides ought to be properly taught,” Bush said, as if ID was a non-sectarian theory on the same intellectual footing as evolution. I suspect what he really wants, but will never admit, is for scientists to make room for God in their theories, and for science teachers to teach Genesis as a valid, scientific alternative to evolution. Early in the 17th-century, a young astronomer named Galileo Galilei presented convincing evidence that the sun, not the Earth, was at the center of the solar system, and yet it took two centuries before the scientific community was convinced, and another century on top of that before it was accepted in the mainstream. (The Catholic Church imprisoned Galileo for heresy, kept him under house arrest for the rest of his life, and didn’t pardon him until 1992, almost four centuries later.) Like Galileo’s sun-centered theory, evolution is a blow to our conceits. First, it suggests we are a product of natural forces rather than God, and therefore calls into question our presumptions of importance. Second, it irrevocably links us with all species of animals, particularly chimpanzees, with whom we share 99.6% of our active genes. It is easy to see why the biblical literalists among us, who believe humans are special and central to God’s plan, would dismiss such a theory as rubbish, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Nature, though, does not yield to human egotism. Arrogance will not magically transport Earth to the center of the universe, nor will it rid us of the fact that humans and chimps share a common ape-like ancestor. ID is just the latest attempt to rescue our bruised egos from yet another scientific lesson in humility. It is old-school creationism – untestable, unprovable, unfalsifiable – wrapped up in a shiny new ribbon of pseudo-scientific hogwash. It has no place in any science curriculum. ------------ About the author: David Gleeson is an aerospace engineer and hard-core skeptic. He is married and has two daughters, ages 7 and 8. Email: coskeptic@mac.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
