|
it's nauseating how many people can't disentangle creationism and intelligent design.
the problem isn't a "how" problem... it's a "why" problem. neo-darwinists believes that the genetics developments of species are the results of random mutations or a purely competitive natural selection. intelligent design proposes that the developments have a consistency and complexity that makes an over-arching design the most plausible explanation.
in order to teach both, you don't have to run over facts or erase history. you don't have to ignore science, because they're both compatible with science. this spills over into the arrogance that pervades neo-darwinists... they think they understand the "how" and automatically assume that they know the "why". they know the mechanism... but simultaneously teach that the mechanism is an end in itself. they have themselves gone from teaching strictly science to injecting their own belief system on the data, the very thing they object to anyone else doing that doesn't subscribe to their "why".
my solutions:
solution A: don't even address the issue except from the standpoint of raw data and testable fact. this means that no implication is given either way when discussing whether life's progression is random or ordered.
solution B: teach the kids all the same factual data, but have a philosophy of science discussion about the idea that we have sprung up through physical chemical combinations alone or whether the universe's progression has intelligent structure.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.
~ Winston Churchill
|