Intelligent Design: More than Dogma
Forward Article to a Friend
Print Article
On November 8, the Kansas Board of Education passed a bill to establish science standards that seek to teach Darwin in a fuller light. The measure aims to eliminate philosophical presuppositions from the evolution debate. If evolution is to be regarded truly as theory, then it is necessary that contrasting viewpoints be considered in its study. In a significant way, lambasting intelligent design as a cop-out “yokel” solution to the problem of biological development is to affirm that evolution is something more than pure theory. Expanding the parameters of evolution to say it is irrefutably correct is to make it a new kind of religion. Reformers in Kansas do not have an agenda in backing Intelligent Design, but rather want to make certain that students in Kansas get a “macro” sense of evolution that takes into account its possible weaknesses. In a news release published by the Intelligent Design Network, Managing Director John Calvert explains how the changed curriculum will be structured:
“School children in Kansas will now learn that evolutionary theory can be understood as resting on a three-legged stool. One leg is microevolution (change within a species)…another leg is macroevolution (the appearance of complex cellular structures and new body plans), and the third is chemical evolution (the origin of life from non-living chemicals.”
In the changes approved by the Board, the first leg of Calvert’s stool will be taught as scientific fact. There is no doubt that random mutation and natural selection serve to initiate microevolutionary changes, and consequently there will be no margin of uncertainty in the course materials that cover the topic in classes. That said, concerning the stool’s second and third legs, the newly-adopted syllabus allows for the possible inadequacy of those mechanisms to provide a comprehensive explanation for many natural phenomena. The theory will still be taught, but it will be clearly presented as theory. The hope is that with an unambiguous understanding of the different aspects of evolutionary conjecture, students will be informed to make their own decisions about a controversial concept.
On paper, Kansas’ reforms are practical and unbiased. Far from rebuking rationality, the changes uphold “good science” in the sense that they aim to focus studies on data rather than the overarching philosophical and religious implications of that data. Which begs the question, why are so many people so mad? What about intelligent design inherently steams the scientific world and why is the notion of some “higher order” necessarily anti-logical?
For a possible answer, we turn to the University of Kansas class bulletin. In the Spring of 2006, a new course titled “Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies” will be offered through Religious Studies Department. According to Department Chair Paul Mirecki:
“Creationism is mythology. Intelligent design is mythology. It’s not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not.”
Proponents of standard evolutionary theory argue that intelligent design is little more than biblical dogma dressed up in lab coat. KU Chancellor Bob Hemenway defines the emerging movement as an affront to truth:
“The attack on evolution continues across America. The United States cannot accept efforts to undermine the teaching of science.”
If we boil it down, the problem of evolution is the problem of how the spirit functions in an unspiritual age. Evolution is flawed inasmuch as its supporters want it to be more than it is. Positivistic America, where not a thing can be said credibly that cannot be empirically proved, still craves philosophy. The spirit still functions flawlessly, but with no clear manner of expression. In a society that refuses to acknowledge a reality that cannot be perceived by the senses or demonstrated by mathematical proof, our modus operandi is to treat evolution as a legitimate philosophy.
But it would be totally wrong to grant positivist thought the status of philosophy. True philosophy relies on a unitary body that is shattered in the face of “empirical philosophy”. For empirical philosophy, originating in the 17 th century with such laymen experts as Voltaire ( Philosophie de l’historie ) and Lamarck ( Philosophie de la Nature ), supplants extra-scholastic modes of verification with countless inductive hypotheses about disparate fields. Ultimately, the contempt for any idea of God makes for an ungrounded world. When the focus of an argument does not lie within itself nor in God, it is impractical because it is subject to every external dictate.
Rather than being “stupid”, Kansas’ reforms reflect a deeper understanding of the nature of science. This is because the reforms account for an innate spirituality in the human mind that cannot stand to be extinguished. If it is forbidden to seek truth beyond the directly perceivable, then the spirit will extend the scope of the directly perceivable beyond its accurate limits. In this way, the spirit fulfills its original goal, and in this way evolution becomes a new kind of faith where traditional faith is barred. Semantically, evolution can never be rigorously “true” because innate in the definition of “theory” is the ability of “theory” to be disproved. Granted it is practical and granted it will still be taught, but at least in Kansas, evolution will no longer be a quasi-religion that fosters complacency where science could otherwise advance.
