Atheism, Intelligent Design, and Ignorance

The teaching of any form of creationism, including Intelligent Design, is typically endorsed by religious conservatives and fundamentalists. Critics commonly assume that the reason for this is their desire to promote their religious ideology, but there is also more at work: basic ignorance of science.

Ed Brayton is a theist, not an atheist. Dean Esmay is an atheist, not a fundamentalist or a creationist. Which sides do you suppose they occupy in the debate over whether Intelligent Design should be taught in public school science classes? If you knew nothing else about them, you’d be justified in thinking that Brayton defends teaching ID and Esmay attacks it — but you’d be wrong. I doubt you could find any other example of a theist calmly explaining evolution to an atheist insisting that Intelligent Design be taught in science classes.

This is where ignorance of science comes into play. Dean Esmay doesn’t promote the teaching of Intelligent Design because he is seeking to use the state to endorse his religious ideology. One might plausibly accuse him of any number of things, but certainly not that. On the whole, Esmay’s position seems to be largely based upon ignorance — ignorance of science, of evolutionary theory, and quite a few basic facts.

Ed Brayton explains one example of his failure to understand something outside of science:

Just so we’re clear here, for the second time, no book is being banned in Dover. Period. The people in Dover are entirely free to read Of Pandas and People if they wish and they will be so regardless of the outcome of the trial. It is no more “book banning” to refuse to teach religious dogma in science classes than it is “book banning” to refuse to teach holocaust denial in a history course or flat earthism in an earth science class. Having the right to believe something false and the right to read books advocating those things is not equivalent to having those books banned. By Dean’s reasoning, every single choice a school makes about what it will teach that rules out things that it won’t teach is “book banning”. And that, of course, is patently absurd.

Perhaps Dean Esmay doesn’t believe that schools should make pedagogical choices about what books are used. Perhaps he doesn’t think that scientists and scientific standards should determine what gets taught and what books are used in science classes. Such a position does indeed sound absurd, but I suppose it’s possible — in which case, at least Esmay is consistent. Otherwise, what on earth is he thinking?

Brayton has also explained where Dean Esmay doesn’t understand evolutionary theory. Esmay didn’t react to well to this, apparently, which is curious because he’s not a scientist and doesn’t pretend to have a scientific background. When informed about something he didn’t understand, something that is a matter of fact rather than opinion, why not simply accept this and move on? Why get defensive? Is it simply that his desire to have been right overwhelms good sense?

Dean Esmay has written that “fulminating intellectual bullies act condescending, insulting, infuriated at being questioned,” but I can think of no better description of his own behavior.

 

Read More:

• Evolution vs. Creationism
• Science vs. Religion
• What is Intelligent Design?
• What is Balanced Treatment?
• What is Science?