It seems that Yale University graduates - at least some of them - cannot be counted on to distinguish between (1) The founding principle of modern biology and one of the most powerful unifying concepts in all of science, on the one hand; and (2) A dumb invocation of greater forces to "explain" the wonder and diversity of natural life, on the other.
It's a shock, I know. But 146 years after the discovery of evolution by natural selection, I humbly suggest that the Yale faculty consider introducing the subject into their core science requirement to alleviate the chances of such embarrassing episodes occurring in the future.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It's clear from the article that Bush is struggling not to have to say "I believe in intelligent design." He says, "Teach the controversy", while remaining silent on whether or not he believes in intelligent design.
The "Teach the Controversy" method of getting intelligent design into school cirricula, of course, is advocated not least by other intelligent designers, since it gives them a better shot -- far better -- than getting in on their scientific support.
Something which may escape intelligent designers is that forcing trained biologists to teach the controversy of intelligent design will result most likely in their doing so derisively. "And here we have a bad theory, called 'intelligent design', which holds no support outside of religious fanatics and people completely disconnected from reality."
In fact, teaching intelligent design may be the most efficient means of teaching the scientific process. Intelligent design permits random variations, and permits violations of the laws of physics, and of cause-effect rationality. So, say that intelligent designers find a phenomenon which violates the laws of physics; a good teach will say, "So, this either requires a God to produce it out of nothing, or there is something deeper in physics which we don't understand. Children, which do you think it is?" We could even go into the history of failures of intelligent design -- like how the universe was thought to be intelligently designed with the Earth at the center of it, but that that is clearly wrong. The conclusion, "Historically, the hypothesis of a God as designer of the universe has failed to predict how the universe behaves -- in every single of its applications. Not true of physical law. "
However, the unfortunate aspect of this approach is that it uses scarce school resources to help move religious zealots who prefer to listen to authority than to scientific process from the 16th and into the 19th century.
Post a Comment