At a party recently someone told me that an alarming number of people in Aotearoa think that it would be a good idea to teach intelligent design in our schools. We were all really hoping it was a poorly worded survey. I mean, if I didn’t know anything about it and someone asked me if I was for Intelligent Design, I’d say “yes, of course”, with visions of beautifully ergonomic leather chairs, or perhaps one of those milk jugs with a floating sugar bowl.
Apparently the Ministry of Education's guidelines "don't place any restrictions on its teaching. Nor do they specifically restrict the teaching of young Earth creation or theistic evolution.” And indeed Creationism is taught in some schools in Aotearoa.
I do agree with them on one point. I don’t like the way that science is taught as though it is infallible. I think we should teach theories as though they are the best we can describe things at this point… and they may be proved wrong in the future.
But that’s about where my sympathy with Intelligent Design ends.
It’s just crazy logic! For example: There are some gaps, some things that can’t [yet] be explained or proven by science. Therefore there must be an intelligent being [who we will never be able to explain or prove] behind it all. Do I really need to point out the flaws in this argument?
I definitely think if we are going to teach an alternative to evolution, it should be the Flying Spaghetti Monster (now there’s an intelligent design).
"One of the hardest things to do as a scientist is to put my personal beliefs aside when discussing matters of science. So as a professional, I have to say that both forms of Intelligent Design - ID and ID-FSM are equally valid and if intelligent design is taught in schools, equal time should be given to the FSM theory and the non-FSM theory. But, speaking personally now, it seems to me the FSM theory is MUCH more plausable than the non-FSM ID theory, because it is the only one of the two that takes into account all the discrepancies between ID and measureable objective reality."
-- Professor Douglas Shaw, Ph.D
But seriously, the FSM theory would teach students valuable skills, such as skepticism and humour, which, once learned, could be applied to Intelligent Design AND evolution.
I remember when I was newly Christian, and struggling with some of the fundamental teachings, and also struggling with the fact that my parents thought it was all hogwash... I was talking to a friend about some of my doubts, and she said she knew that there had to be a God, because he thought of little details, like the little rim around our nostrils, which catches the drips. So of course I went home and repeated this comment to my mother, who said “then why would a God make have terrible hayfever?”
*
Tonight I went to a Living the Questions session at St Andrew’s, and the topic was “Creation.” I have an allergic reaction to the word, because of the connotations it carries, of, well, Creationism. But it was a really interesting discussion. One of the people on the DVD said that myths are never true or false, they’re just living or dead. The creationist story, the young earth myth, if taken literally, certainly deserves to die. Whether or not the Christian creation myths, taken as metaphors, or whatever, can still teach us something relevant today, is another question. I dunno.
At St Andrew’s we have introduced the Season of Creation into our church year. This is not a time when we talk about how God made the world in 6 days. It’s a time when we focus on “nature” and ecology, and our relationship with the rest of the planet.
Sometimes I wish we called these four Sundays by a different name, so as not to put off other rational beings. But then I have to acknowledge the fact that I am, in a way, a creationist. It’s just that I don’t believe God was up in heaven, pulling the strings, arranging the players. I believe that God was in the empty timelessness in the beginning, that God was in the big bang, in the cooling of stardust, in the swirling of primordial sludge, in the first glimmers of life, and in the evolutionary process that continues in us today. I don’t believe God created these things in the same way that a potter creates a vase from a lump of clay. I just think that this amazing process happened, and something divine was in all of the parts, and in the process… something eternal and dynamic and beyond our ability to explain or understand. And that is what I call God.
And right now I’m feeling really excited about being part of a church like St Andrew’s. I love the discussions we have, about life, about love, and peace and respect for “creation.” I love that we know that we don’t really know anything, that we’re just clutching at strands, trying to make some sense. I love being part of a community that’s trying... trying to grow, trying to change, trying to live well.
This is an interesting one. I think the issue of whether Intelligent Design or even Creationism should be taught in schools is kind of a side issue, because there are many similar issues to do with belief systems around things like capital punishment, abortion, neo-classical economics for example, that all have pseudoscience and mythology attached, which on its own is dangerous, or even if presented with 'the other side' but not within a system that values critical analysis.
But equally the big questions can be incredibly powerful for young people, to get them to question and think for themselves. Fundamental goal of any education system in a liberal democracy surely?
If the education system values those skills through curriculum and assessment, then we have nothing to fear from the teaching of any viewpoint. If our education system says that an educated 19-year-old is one that can pick valid holes in ANY point of view [an example of an exam question might be something like, "In para y of this article the writer has made point x. Given the thrust of the rest of the writer's article, what do you think the writer is trying to imply with this point and how do you question their implication?"], then bullshit ideas will not take hold in the generations who experience that system. That is what fundies and biggots should be afraid of.
I think some systems, eg, the UK and Australia, seem to be moving that way. You get for example, that the religious education curriculum in the UK now covers all major religions and philosophy. Merely teaching that there are other faiths and non-faith ways to address the big spiritual questions delivers a major blow to the thinking behind religious fundamentalism.
Posted by: suraya at April 19, 2006 01:51 PMI remember arguing with someone about whether or not the events in Jesus's life proved the existance of a Christian god. I suggested that Loki might have organised events so he could play a massive joke on humanity. It certainly seems like his style.
I'm prepared to accept the devine as an explanation for things, but I don't find that a satisfying argument for any particular religion. If god is ineffable, then we can't get the religion completely right. Which either means we are doomed to fail, or the detail doesn't actually matter and we all have to make the best decisions we can.
Posted by: .carla at April 20, 2006 10:57 PMI think the concentration on logic in education is a problem.We are being taught that every must have a logical explaination or if it doesn't it must be somehow a less worthy concept.
Sometimes it's great to believe in magic. To be faced something wonderous that is beyond one's understanding and be able to think this is great is very empowering.
Take love as an example. To examine love with logic devalues it, to believe in love andjust feel it with out questioning it is awesome.
Posted by: phil at April 22, 2006 11:12 AM