My column in my college newspaper (Intelligent Design)

[Moloch]

Intelligent design is a theory that has been thrust into the national spotlight by a case in Pennsylvania. In that case, a school board inserted references to intelligent design in its biology curriculum without consulting teachers or members of the community.

I must admit that I was unaware of what intelligent design is until recently. I just assumed it was one of those buzz-phrases that conservatives like to spit out like “culture of life,” or “activist judges.”

Wikipedia defines intelligent design as “the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Though publicly most intelligent design advocates state that their focus is on detecting evidence of design in nature, without regard to who or what the designer might be, in statements to their constituents and supporters nearly all state explicitly that they believe the designer to be the Christian God.”

What problem do I have with this? None at all. I personally believe in God and think that he/she/it created the universe. I also believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution. I think everyone is entitled to believe what ever they want regarding the origins of Earth. It is your right to believe Earth was established in its modern form by a galactic overlord named Xenu, as Scientology teaches, if you choose to do so.

My problem is in the teaching of religious ideas in public schools. There is certainly no lack of churches, mosques or synagogues in this country. Children can learn about religion all day long if they want to. There’s a place for everything, and the function of public schools is not to teach religion.

Want your kids to learn about religion in school? There are also tons of private and religious schools in the U.S. where kids can learn nothing but religion if that’s what the school chooses to do.

In the Pennsylvania case, eight families are suing the school board to get the text books, which state that Darwin’s theory of evolution is not a fact and the theory contains inexplicable “gaps,” removed arguing that it constitutes a violation of the separation of church and state. The text recommends another book about intelligent design.

If there’s one thing history has proven over and over again, it’s that religion and government do not mix. It’s always had a bad result, whether you are talking about the feudal lords of Europe or modern-day theocracies like the Taliban government of Afghanistan or The current Saudi Arabian regime. Communist regimes have failed, in no small part, because they forced atheist beliefs on people.

Freedom of religion is a good idea, and the authors of the bill of rights had remarkable foresight to include it in the first amendment. The U.S. was, in fact, the first country in the world to codify freedom of religion and we have flourished as a result.

A lot of people would ask what the harm would be in allowing something like intelligent design to be taught in schools. I don’t believe there would be any harm in it done at all. However, we don’t want to get the ball rolling on theocracy. Little things like teaching intelligent design could lead to bigger things, such as discrimination against Buddhists or other religious minorities. It’s happened before.

[McKenzie]

1. religion = bad - faith = good

I am not a Christian but I do have a deep sense of spirituality. That's not introducing god via the back door btw. It's just a statement to give you a context for my comments. Nor do I believe that the Reductionist/Cartesian model is adequate to explain holistic systems...the human body is a case in point. And, we could get into Quantum Theory but I'll sound like a complete moran if I try to talk about it as if I know what it means. </contextual comments>

Now people of quiet faith are usually good people; their faith is often kept hidden within them, as it should be, rather than being foisted upon others with the manic zeal that often accompanies evangalism. Religion, on the other hand, is worn as a badge, partly because people instinctively need to create a sense of self identity through association with other, like minded people. The self identity thus created is centred around adherence to the religion to the point of denigrating non believers. That is bloody dangerous.

I know it's more complicated than the rather simplistic commentary I have just made. The central point of what I'm trying to convey is that organised bands of people, armed with certain knowledge as to the source of truth, are bloody dangerous. To reiterate: religion = bad - faith = good. I don't support organised religion of any sort for that reason.

As for teaching ID that's a good idea provided that the teaching will allows kids to think critically. If, on the other hand, it is presented as fact, and not up for discussion, then it becomes little more than indoctrination.

<edit> crap grammar...still crap

[longship]

2. Good article.

A totally unscientific argument which is probably good. There's a huge segment of the population who would not be touched by any argument about what the word theory means to a scientist or anything like that. Myself, I've always made the argument from a scientific viewpoint because that's more or less where I'm at. But this is a damned good plea without muddying the waters with scientific jargon. Thanks for this.