Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
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.
|
the reason we don't disentangle creationism and intelligent design is because ID was essentially created and is being pushed in response to the fundamentalists inability to get creationism taught in school. i'm not sure, but i don't think ID was around before the 70's. it's just an attempt at getting the door for creationism into the classroom.
we have a good idea on the 'how.' it so far works very well with the evidence.
and we have a really good idea on the 'why' too. why do things evolve? competition. it happens at all levels (genetic, social, etc). we see bacteria become immune to antibiotics allowing them to better compete and survive. we see ancient countries imporving technology to better compete and outlast their neighbors. if you don't compete and adapt to the world around you, you become extinct.
look at professional sports. originally all they would do is practice, then practice and weightlift, then adding in good nutriotion, then supplements, and then steroids. athletes are doing what they must to compete in their contemporary environment.
it's a lot easier to see how competition is present in pretty much every aspect of life and use that as an explanation for evolution than 'some intelligent designer did it.' one we can see and verify, the other is just as plausible (has the same amount of evidence) as the boogie man being in closet.
now, if you mean 'why' as in 'why are we here?', well, i ask you, why does there have to be a reason? again, the simplest answer (and most likely one) is that we're here because we evolved through natural selection rather than 'the big guy in the sky put me here (directly or indirectly).'
edit: forgot about your solutions...
solution A is bad because that woudl be like teaching kids the alphabet but not teaching them how it all ties together.
solution B is bad because that discussion should be in a comparitive religions class where it isn't wasting valuable class room time. there's a lot of information to be learned in a biology class, other than talking about the ethics of science (like what to consider when designing an experiment), philosophy should be left out.