|
It's interesting
how the underlying assumptions and arguments of these articles
convey ideas about debate that go far beyond theories of evolution
and intelligent design. The arguments seem to demand a need for
free speech. For example, President Bush;s statements regarding
intelligent design being taught in schools are interpreted as "the
president using his bully pulpit to support freedom of inquiry and
free speech about the issue of biological origins" (73). The idea
of free speech brings up the interesting concept of theory for "if
you're going to teach the Darwinian theory as evolution, teach it as
a theory" (72). Have we lost the meaning of the word "theory"? Is
the world too easily beginning to accept theories as facts? Are we
forgetting that "part of education is to expose people to different
schools of thought" (72)?
For the issue of
intelligent design and evolution, yes, we are at times forgetting to
debate. The articles bring up flaws in each argument, but as far as
I can tell, these flaws go unexplained or undefended. For example,
" the
overall argument [for natural design] doesn't hold. The authors
simply assert, without offering any proof that Darwinian evolution
has led to immortality in America. Other causes for this supposed
slide draconian drug laws, the dearth of sex education, the
pressures of commerce are never considered. Nor do the authors
spell out exactly how intelligent design instills personal
responsibility. Suppose I act immorally because I have bought into
materialist explanations of human evolution. Now I find out that we
were created by space aliens. Why should I change by behavior?"
(67).
On the other hand,
" scientists
seem to think that all issues regarding the origin of life are
settled. But science is forced to admit error all the time.
And while evolution clearly as some merit, it cannot account for the
great leap in which apes, driven by nothing but instinct to survive,
somehow evolved into a thinking, discerning,
right-from-wrong-knowing human being. Scientists say it's beneath
them to even consider the possibility that something outside the
natural realm was at work. But science always performs better when
it approaches the world with a little humility, and if any subject
lends itself to humility, it's the origin of life" (61).
There are clearly objections
to each theory, so why do supporters find it "beneath them" to
defend their beliefs. What is the danger of a society that
constantly builds up arguments without defending them? How can we
remedy this problem? What is the underlying strategy of the debate
teaching students across the nation? |