|
|
COMMENTARY • March 2003 |
It’s time to teach the controversy
By Christine Watson
CHRISTIAN TIMES- Opinion |
Intelligent Design Theory has gained much ground. Over the past four
years, intelligent design proponents have been successful at revealing
the many serious flaws of Darwinism to the public. As a result, the
dogmatic, ‘naturalism-only’ philosophical approach that Darwinist
scientists continue to force on students in order to keep alternate
theories out of the debate in classrooms has clearly been exposed.
Such bias has not gone unnoticed by congressional leaders. On June 13,
2001, U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, R-PA, proposed an amendment in the
newly signed education bill that said, “it is the sense of the Senate
that (1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish
the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious
claims that are made in the name of science; and (2) where biological
evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand
why this subject generates so much continuing controversy and should
prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions
regarding the subject.”
The amendment included no provisions for implementation or enforcement
but supports the conclusion that science education would be more
effective if it prepared students to understand these controversies.
Some science educators who expressed objection insisted that there was
no scientific controversy over biological evolution but merely a
religiously or politically based resistance to scientific knowledge,
which should not be dignified by allowing it to be expressed in science
classes.
This is an old enervated argument. According to their logic, the many
persons with outstanding scientific credentials who have expressed
skepticism toward the theory of evolution must not really be scientists.
“More important,” states Phillip Johnson in his latest book entitled,
The Right Questions: Truth, Meaning and Public Debate, “is that the
Darwinist educators cannot afford to acknowledge to either their
students or the public that there is a distinction between the data or
testable theories of science, on the one hand, and philosophical or
religious claims that are made in the name of science, on the other. All
Darwinist propaganda depends on blurring that distinction so that a
credulous public is taught to accept philosophical
naturalism/materialism as inherent in the definition of ‘science’.”
Johnson points out that, “Education in other subjects aims at helping
students to understand the subject as completely as possible. However,
education in biological evolution (Darwinism) must aim at keeping the
students and the general public confused so they will continue to accept
philosophy as science and not perceive that the scientific evidence is
not consistent with the scientistic philosophy (naturalism) that the
ruling metaphysicians of science want them to believe. Darwinism and
clear thinking are at odds with each other.”
In a Focus on the Family article entitled, “Ohio Paves Way for Evolution
Debate,” Terry Phillips states, “The victory seems to already be making
an impact in Ohio schools. Board member Deborah Owens Fink noted that
after the board’s preliminary vote in October indicating an ‘intent to
adopt’ the new science standards, many school districts called to say
they were allowing students to openly debate intelligent design.”
“Previously,” Ms. Fink said, “students did not know about intelligent
design or did not feel comfortable discussing it in the classroom;
however, now students are actively searching the Internet and other
sources to learn more about it.”
Additionally, the school board modified the definition of science itself
to no longer reflect a naturalistic worldview. The new definition is,
“Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, based on
observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, and
theory building, which leads to more adequate explanations of natural
phenomena.” This replaces the old definition, which said, “Scientific
knowledge is limited to natural explanations for natural phenomena.”
Other states are considering similar changes. Teachers and students will
now have the opportunity to present alternate views and the amendment
will protect their legal right to do so.
Students will now have the opportunity to study the concept that the
universe is the product of a rational mind which provides a far better
metaphysical basis for scientific rationality than the competing concept
that everything in the universe, including our minds, is ultimately
based in the mindless movements of matter.
Genome research actually supports the view that a supernatural mind
designed the instructions that guide the immensely complex biochemical
processes of life. Gene Myers, a computer scientist who was instrumental
in assembling the genome map for Celera Corporation, told Tom Abate,
science reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle, “What really astounds
me is the architecture of life. The system is extremely complex. It’s
like it was designed.... There’s a huge intelligence there. I don’t see
that as being unscientific. Others may, but not me.”
Christine Watson has a bachelor’s
degree from Kean University and is currently a student of Christian
Apologetics in the “Defending the Faith MA Lecture Series” at Biola
University. Her previously published articles on this subject include,
“A New Challenge to Darwinism,” and “Materialism Can’t Explain Life.”
|
|
