| That Guy said: I also find it ironic that the pendulum has swung the other way. 150 years ago, someone claiming to be an evolutionist would have been flamed and pretty much ridiculed out of the scientific community (or at least out of VG Chartz, if such website existed 150 years ago). Now its the other way around and "Intelligent Design" is the new 4-letter word in science. My opinion on the matter is that we could reach some sort of balance. I have no objection against ID people having their own college courses. If such a demand is there, then there should be a class about it. At this point, however, my opinion is that it should be held as a general elective (much like how theology or philosophy can be general electives). If people want to learn about creationism, then they are certainly welcome to do so. People who subscribe to evolution can still take their evolutionary biology classes. |
So should we have a class in phlogiston theory for those who deny atomic theory?
A medical course on humour imbalances and demonic possession for those who reject germ theory?
Aristotle's theory of gravity for those who reject Newton?
How about Newton's explanation for why planets stay in their orbits (God keeps them there), rather than LaPlace's mathematical explanation?
How about the Larson theory of dinosaur extinction being taught side by side with the impact theory? (Based on my college professors' door decorations, I'm pretty sure most of them were secret Larson supporters anyway).
Do we give voice to those who reject historical accuracy (holocaust deniers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, Washington's wooden teeth)? Where, exactly, does it all end?
I know, let's have a racial superiority class for all those white supremecists! They claim they can back their beliefs up scientifically too! Though to be fair, we'll have to offer similiar courses for non-white racists as well. I'm all for equal opportunity ignorance.
Better yet, whenever someone suggests a radical new medical treatment, instead of listening to the so-called "experts", we'll present both the old and new ideas to the med students, and let THEM decide which one they'll use! What could possibly be wrong with that!
Science is not something one "subscribes" to like a religious or political belief. It presents argument, presents evidence, and those arguments that have the best evidence are the ones that stand and are accepted. Naturalistic evolution as, essentially, described by Darwin has been debated now for 149 years. It has been through various incarnations as different ideas were tested and rejected (neo-Lammarckism, for example), but since the discovery of genetics 100 years ago (practically speaking, that is), the evidence has rather consistently mounted in favor of the neo-Darwininan view (combining most of Darwin's original ideas with population genetics, mendelian genetics and now molecular genetics). And it's not even close. Trying to put ID on anything close to equal scientific footing with evolution is like trying to say that the Chocolate Rain guy deserves equal footing with Johann Sebastian Bach. Let the ID people do their work, do the research, present their findings, find SOME SHRED OF EVIDENCE, and then, and only then should it be considered appropriate material for a science class.
Horses first, THEN carts. Give us the evidence, then we'll give it to the students.
