I didn't post this earlier, mainly because I don't like a lot of it. But, having received compliments on it from a theologian and a physicist today, both of whom I respect, I'm considering that I might have been too hard on myself. I still don't love it though, but here it is anyways:
Published in Feb. 21 Optimist
No one has ever seen an electron swirling around the nucleus of an atom. Still, we all take quantum mechanics for granted and accept the scientifically proven electron as fact.
This assurance can't be given to Intelligent Design, the latest so-called theory that has slowly crept into the nation's public schoolrooms.
The battle of whether Intelligent Design, a new form of creationism, should be taught in public science classrooms is nonsensical. The pseudoscientific conjecture has no business being taught alongside what can be proven scientifically: evolution.
Intelligent Design conjectures that the account for living organisms is so complex, a supernatural entity must have been behind the formation. Most proponents of this conjecture, who claim it's a theory, do not necessarily want it to replace evolution in classrooms, but rather they want evolution highly scrutinized.
Intelligent Design plays to the commonly used meaning of "theory," which is a hunch or a guess. However, the scientific definition of theory is different. A theory in science can be experimented on and tested. True, the work of The Origin of Species author Charles Darwin leaves questions unanswered, but almost 150 years of scientific research and discovery rests in his corner. Theological questions spurred by the evolution debate are best fought in theology classes.
Christians should not be afraid for their children to sit through a class about evolution, whether out of fear it might hinder the child's faith or because they find the notion altogether beneath them.
Parents should not be afraid their children will doubt creation if they learn about evolution. Even if they begin to doubt, questioning one's faith is paramount to building a stronger faith. Learning about the other side of the debate is key to forming a more solid opinion.
I don't remember when I was taught evolution in middle or high school. The topic was likely discussed in 9th grade biology; but, having grown up in a Christian household, I learned about the theory of evolution while still holding on to my belief in a Creator God.
Students should learn about the realities and complexities of the world and how science, based on facts, helps explains these phenomena. Let them explore the issues and come to their own conclusions on whether a higher power must have been involved in the creation of the earth.
Intelligent Design followers discredit God by refusing to question him or by thinking his works far too complex to figure out. A line exists where one has to decide to believe in God or not, but the line for everyone is different.
Whether we are standing on top of a mountain, watching a loved one give birth or coming to terms with death, as humans we all examine our existence and find our own answers. Some of the greatest discoveries have spurred from man's desire to understand his creator and explore the seemingly unexplainable.
The debate between evolution vs. creation, or evolution vs. Intelligent Design, should continue, but it is not a scientific debate - it's a theological debate. Thus, it should be carried out in a theological venue and not the public school classroom.
The complexities of life have dumbfounded man from his beginning, whether he believes he came from a monkey or the breath of God. This debate should exist in a free and open marketplace of ideas.
After all, what creation is more beautiful, and more necessary now, than the art of speech and expression?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Heh.
I arrived at ACU shortly after the last big evolution flap.
Adaptation is a key scientific concept that has application in all of the life sciences and in many social sciences as well. It's a key principle for understanding how things change over time, and why. If Christians are to be competent in the sciences they need to know this concept and use it intuitively, but the fact that they do does not mean they accept the whole baggage of organic life coming from inorganic matter 4 billion years ago without the involvement of an external force.
I don't have a big problem with introducing ID as secondary to speciation and adaptation, because the structures involved are fascinating and controversy provokes curiosity. I don't think ID should by any means replace adaptation, but banning concepts from the classroom once students demonstrate knowledge of the basics is just poor educational practice. If you want to argue that there's not enough time or money to cover ID, that's more appropriate, but backhanding questions away before they're presented is just as dogmatic as any theology.
Post a Comment