Intelligent Design: A Question of Fairness?

Friday January 2, 2004

There are those who, not really understanding science, think that it is a matter of "fairness" to present scientific and unscientific ideas side-by-side in science classes. I know, it makes no sense at all, but the people who argue for this are usually the ones arguing for the unscientific ideas so their thinking usually isn't the most coherent in the first place.

The Montana forum presents just such ideas from Curtis L. Brickley, Jr.:

There are some very important scientific criticisms of Darwin’s theory that students should be able to learn about. Criticisms such as the conspicuous inability of the fossil record to support Darwin’s theory, the unexplainable explosion of life during the Cambrian era contradicting Darwin’s theory, the fraudulent drawings of “Haeckel’s Embryos” in an attempt to manufacture supporting evidence for common ancestry. Then, of course, we have the infamous Galapagos finches. Darwin’s finches are said to be one of the best examples of the ability of Darwin’s process. The criticism here is that evolutionist’s use an observable, empirical, observation in micro-evolution as irrefutable, empirical evidence for the unobservable, forensic question of macro-evolution.

Actually, there aren't any genuine scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory - Brickley is a minister, not a scientist, and he apparently never learned not to try and educate people in topics where he himself is completely ignorant. The fossil evidence does support evolution, not any form of creationism. The Cambrian explosion is not a problem for evolution. The supporting evidence for micro-evolution also support macro-evolution because there are no logical or biological barriers that prevent mico-evolution from becoming macro-evolution, given enough time.

Intelligent Design certainly doesn't offer a competing theory. It's not scientific - it's simply the attempt to argue that there isn't enough evidence for evolution, therefore there must be a god. Intelligent Design offers no testable prediction, no experiments, and nothing worthy of peer-reviewed scientific journals. It's a haven for religionists who can't bring themselves to abandon creationism but also don't want to look like the fools who embrace creationism. The creationists, however, at far more consistent with their beliefs.

Putting Intelligent Design in science classes alongside evolution makes as much sense as putting astrology next to astronomy in the same classes.

Read More: