Recently, a thought provoking discussion in Professor Jon Rochmis’ Mass Media class fell upon a current controversial issue concerning education: Intelligent Design.
Intelligent Design, for all of you who haven’t come across it in your philosophy or mass media classes, is the concept that the universe in all its miraculous nature cannot be but the work of a great intelligent force.
Intelligent Design supporters are currently fighting in court in Pennsylvania to get their concept taught in public schools’ science classrooms. They have already required high school science teachers in Georgia and Kansas to read at the beginning of class, a statement saying that evolution is merely a theory and hasn’t been completely been proven. This statement has provoked lawsuits because it insinuates an alternative that seems to downgrade the concept of evolution. Most of the controversy about Intelligent Design lies in the the phrase “intelligent force” implies. The interpretation of “intelligent design” to refer to a Christian God has Intelligent Design defenders viewed as creationists and the debate confused for a Religion Vs Science. What Intelligent Design proponents argue is that their concept is a scientific alternative to Darwinism unlike creationism and should therefore be treated like science and not suffer the accusation of being a religious perspective.
This is the definition, more or less that dictionaries offer for science: the study of the physical world and manifestation. And here’s a word that the judges of these court cases and all these people ranting about the issue should look up: metaphysics: the branch of philosophy concerned with the study of existence. People seem to get quickly alarmed at the mention of an alternative to evolution. Many people get very defensive of evolution in the name of science, and it is that bias that is so visible among scholars and the media. Believing that Intelligent Design is Creationism masquerading as science most people don’t even pay attention to the details of the concept. The theory of fine tuning for example, that extensively attempts to exemplify intelligent design by showing that certain physical constants are exactly the way they ought to be in order to allow life, and had they been slightly different the world wouldn’t turn out the way we know it to have and life wouldn’t have been possible.
It is also in being defensive of evolution in the name of science that many can’t see the salient: that the controversy is over two different entities of separate disciplines: the study of how the universe came to exist (metaphysics), and the way the world is and how it came to be (science and evolution).
In California, a private religious school and some religious groups have emulated the uproar of the east coast in suing the University of California for not accepting religion influenced biology, history and English classes as transferable courses. Though unlikely, if the
UC loses this lawsuit, the line between religion and state would be smudged, debilitating the power that science increasingly holds in our education and our future.
Philosophy can’t be taught in science class. Philosophy has its own section and if Intelligent Design supporters mandate Intelligent Design to be taught as part of the philosophy discipline, it would be a more acceptable and even a great idea; after all, evolution still remains a theory and so is Intelligent Design. The Skyline View staff strongly believes that the incorporation of Intelligent Design into our education would broaden the range of our intellect. However, we here all agree that pseudosciences should be exposed for what they are and not be automatically admitted in science curriculums.