Just think about it.
There have been many conversations lately about the intelligent design ruling that was passed down against a Pennsylvania school board, and I thought that I’d throw my thoughts into the mix. This has the potential of becoming a long post, but I’ll try to make it brief. I am tired, so I hope this makes sense when I am finished writing it.
I’ll start by saying that I agree with the judge’s decision to overturn the school board’s policy of including intelligent design in science classes. It seems fairly obvious that in this case their motives were not innocent. They were not working to promote a more open learning environment by including intelligent design in curriculum and placing conditional language around evolution; they were trying to create a forum in the public school system for their specific, religiously-guided ideas about origins. Their errors- and what I see to be the larger errors of this conversation from both sides of the issue- were in approach/means as opposed to the actual content of the discussion.
Intelligent design is a philosophical question at its core. The implications of the answer reach far beyond the bounds of science, and it seems petty to try and contain it in that classroom as though it fits under academic investigation. Placing the grand questions of “Who and Why are we?” in contrast to less-universe-altering theories of evolution (natural mechanisms of effect) gives evolution way too much credit. Darwin may have secularized science, but he didn’t secularize the human experience.
It kills me. Why evolution vs. intelligent design? How have we created these artificial enemies? These are not conflicting views of science. They are not even in the same genre of investigation. I feel very fortunate to have been raised in a home where my parents disagreed about the age of the universe. We had so many conversations about the nature of science and the role of Scripture; it created an atmosphere where dialogue was valued more than dogma.
But even though I disagree with teaching intelligent design in a science classroom, I think the debate does bring attention to a gap in our systems of American education- why aren’t students required to take philosophy courses in high school? Intelligent design theories are simply a bit of language around some of the big questions that we all ask, and they are just the tip of the iceberg. How can we ask students to study the history of the USSR and the Cold War without truly understanding the tenets of Marxism? How can we expect learners to discuss recent literature and overlook teaching about the post-modernism that drove its inception? And how can we present scientific data without ever allowing space to ask ourselves “why?”
The study of philosophy has a rich, deep history; I don’t think it could ever be taught well without significant time for study and conversation. I know that some secondary schools are able to offer philosophy classes, but- as far as I understand- it is rarely more than an elective. I realize that there are levels of cognitive maturity, and not all high school students would be able to grasp philosophical conversations. But it seems that we owe kids more than we have been giving them. We live at the height of literacy in the history of the world. We have great minds and ideas to study. Classic philosophy is behind every accepted academic subject, so why don’t we touch on the roots once in a while?
There you have some of the questions that have been floating around in my head about all of this. I’m not an educator, and I may be missing a major piece of the picture here. I’d love to hear some thoughts from you all on this whether you agree or disagree with me. Intelligent design is a real question and it leads to important conversations, but it will never fit into the small box of a science classroom. It certainly should not be used as a religious alternative to "secular" science. However we should create space to discuss the philosophy behind how we know ourselves and how we see the world. That can only inspire more true learning.
I’ll start by saying that I agree with the judge’s decision to overturn the school board’s policy of including intelligent design in science classes. It seems fairly obvious that in this case their motives were not innocent. They were not working to promote a more open learning environment by including intelligent design in curriculum and placing conditional language around evolution; they were trying to create a forum in the public school system for their specific, religiously-guided ideas about origins. Their errors- and what I see to be the larger errors of this conversation from both sides of the issue- were in approach/means as opposed to the actual content of the discussion.
Intelligent design is a philosophical question at its core. The implications of the answer reach far beyond the bounds of science, and it seems petty to try and contain it in that classroom as though it fits under academic investigation. Placing the grand questions of “Who and Why are we?” in contrast to less-universe-altering theories of evolution (natural mechanisms of effect) gives evolution way too much credit. Darwin may have secularized science, but he didn’t secularize the human experience.
It kills me. Why evolution vs. intelligent design? How have we created these artificial enemies? These are not conflicting views of science. They are not even in the same genre of investigation. I feel very fortunate to have been raised in a home where my parents disagreed about the age of the universe. We had so many conversations about the nature of science and the role of Scripture; it created an atmosphere where dialogue was valued more than dogma.
But even though I disagree with teaching intelligent design in a science classroom, I think the debate does bring attention to a gap in our systems of American education- why aren’t students required to take philosophy courses in high school? Intelligent design theories are simply a bit of language around some of the big questions that we all ask, and they are just the tip of the iceberg. How can we ask students to study the history of the USSR and the Cold War without truly understanding the tenets of Marxism? How can we expect learners to discuss recent literature and overlook teaching about the post-modernism that drove its inception? And how can we present scientific data without ever allowing space to ask ourselves “why?”
The study of philosophy has a rich, deep history; I don’t think it could ever be taught well without significant time for study and conversation. I know that some secondary schools are able to offer philosophy classes, but- as far as I understand- it is rarely more than an elective. I realize that there are levels of cognitive maturity, and not all high school students would be able to grasp philosophical conversations. But it seems that we owe kids more than we have been giving them. We live at the height of literacy in the history of the world. We have great minds and ideas to study. Classic philosophy is behind every accepted academic subject, so why don’t we touch on the roots once in a while?
There you have some of the questions that have been floating around in my head about all of this. I’m not an educator, and I may be missing a major piece of the picture here. I’d love to hear some thoughts from you all on this whether you agree or disagree with me. Intelligent design is a real question and it leads to important conversations, but it will never fit into the small box of a science classroom. It certainly should not be used as a religious alternative to "secular" science. However we should create space to discuss the philosophy behind how we know ourselves and how we see the world. That can only inspire more true learning.
posted by Erin 1:11 AM
2 Comments:
That's the best commentary on the "intelligent design" controversy that I've ever read. I love the way you think!
Interesting posting! I don't know your debate in the US, and I haven't actually heard anything similar here in Europe, but here in Norway there's a big debate about the place of religion in public life. Are there to be prayers in school, are we to express religious convictions if we are in positions in society etc. It all comes down to what religion means. Is it only something private, or does it have a role in society? I've labeled the recent debates here in Norway as the individualization of religion. I'm not sure about my stance, but I think you’re posting answers some of these questions as well. I'd love to hear your reaction to my posting November 12!
Post a Comment
<< Home