In recent years, the media has been giving substantial play to the Intelligent-Design-Should-Be-Taught-in-Science-Classrooms-Alongside-Evolution debate. I don’t know all the details, and currently I’m too lazy to research the specifics of what has happened. What I do understand, however, the strongest objection against the ID movement is the argument it’s not science and therefore has no place in the science room. Funny, I agree.
*Gasp!* A theist who isn’t a proponent of ID. I’m somewhat ambivalent towards teleological arguments for God’s existence. They might have some merit, but after reading David Hume’s critique of them, I feel that there are stronger lines of reasoning for God’s existence. Whether or not God exists is a metaphysical question, and those sort of inquiries are better investigated deductively rather than inductively. I do hope modern theistic philosophers have effectively responded to Hume and revved up design arguments, but as of now, I have not been exposed to anything too provocative. Alas, I digress…
Anywhoozle, I’m not the only theist who believes ID should not be taught in the classroom. Philosopher Keith Ward gave a lecture on this issue. It’s a bit long, but if you have the time, watch it. He’s definitely of a caliber worth consideration and way beyond anything Ray ‘the Banana Man’ Comfort or Ken Hovind can muster.
If you didn’t watch it, I’ll spoon-feed you the point I want you to take away from this video, so open wide. ID is both a part of theology and on a larger scale, philosophy. It’s not science as science is descriptive and not a worldview like ID. This, however, does not mean ID and other teleological arguments shouldn’t be discussed in school — quite the contrary actually. I’ve felt for a while now philosophy should be introduced earlier than it is to students, and this would be a solid topic for the curriculum of a basic high school philosophy class. And the opposing view, materialism, should also be explored, but only in the philosophy classrooms. Laboratories are off-limits to both.
You see, although science is ultimately rooted in philosophical thinking, it’s an enterprise, not an ideology. Sure, it can support worldviews, but it isn’t one itself. Neither ID nor materialism belong in there. Materialists are correct in crying foul with the ID movement attempting to smuggle its worldview into science, but are they not guilty of the same crime? It seems to me Darwin’s theory of evolution is often taught with a materialist/naturalist bias. That, the unscientific is being taught in the science classroom. Hmmm…something’s rotten in Denmark.
The battle for God’s existence is fought in philosophy, and the two sides pertinent to the conflict need to be exclusively there. I’m just trying to ensure that’s the case and the fight is fair.