Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Intelligent design politics, not science, professor says
(The Norman Transcript, March 08, 2008)

A movement which claims to be an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution is nothing than an attempt to inject politics and religion into the classroom, a University of Oklahoma professor said Friday.

Victor H. Hutchinson, a former George Lynn Cross professor of zoology at OU, told members of the Cleveland County Democratic Party the intelligent design movement is part of an "ongoing culture war" being waged in America.

Hutchinson, now retired, spoke at the Democrats' weekly Tyner Cornbread and Beans luncheon.

"Evolution is not a faith and intelligent design is not a scientific theory," Hutchinson said. "Science can only ask 'how,' science cannot ask 'why?'"

Using a computerized slide presentation, Hutchinson told the group many creationists claim anyone who supports the theory of evolution is automatically an atheist.

"These fundamentalist groups say, 'the removal of the theory of evolution will be salvation of western civilization,'" Hutchinson said. "They have said, 'this is not a debate about science but religion and philosophy.'"

Their group's goal, Hutchinson said, is to make the United States a theocracy.

"Religion and science don't need to conflict," he said. "And most of our country's mainstream church understand this. It's only in the far right that we have this problem."

In fact, Hutchinson said, the only other country with a greater fundamentalist movement seeking to inject religion in the classroom is Islamic Turkey.

"This is something that has happened before," he said "We saw this movement in the '20s, when the country moved toward fundamentalism, and we had a similar response in the '50s and in the '80s."

And now, Hutchinson said, "we're seeing the same movement again."

"Part of the problem is our fault," he said. "Education and science educators have failed to explain scientific education to the general public. The general public has no idea what science is and how research is done."

And because of that, Hutchinson said most people don't understand the difference between a theory -- that is, a guess -- and a scientific theory, which has been vetted, tested and reviewed.

"A scientific theory is as close as you can get. The scientific theory of evolution is just as valuable a theory as the theory of gravity or the theory of plate tectonics," he said. "But metaphysical concepts like faith and religion are different. The supernatural is not testable."

Hutchinson criticized some fundamentalist groups' reliance on polls to push for the teaching of intelligent design. "Polls don't determine science," he said.

The professor also had harsh words for some members of the Oklahoma Legislature.

"We've had to battle textbook disclaimers, bills for intelligent design and academic sunshine laws," he said. "This has become a partisan issue and it shouldn't have."

The only way to ensure that science is taught in the classroom is by continuing to fight the efforts of those who support intelligent design, he said.

"There is room for a discussion of intelligent design in the classroom," he said. "But not as a scientific theory. There are many places were it could be discussed, it's just not science."

And the problem, Hutchinson said, will "only get worse."

"Many science teachers are afraid to teach evolution because of the issues involved," he said. "And I had some tell me that when they do talk about it, students have asked to be excused. We are in the middle of a culture war and I don't think it will ever stop."

"Education and science educators have failed to explain scientific education to the general public.

One supposes that the members of the Cleveland County Democratic Party were there for the drinks party or that there was little of interest on the telly.

How many were present wande? Was the Prof on wages? How long did his talk last?

When we speak of the of the Greeks (ancient) as an aesthetic nation this is what we mean. Guided by no supernatural revelation, with no Mosaic law for conduct, they trusted their aesthesis[ , delicately trained and preserved in a condition of the utmost purity.

If their morality was aesthetic and not theocratic, it is none the less on that account humane and real.

Intelligent design is not science and it should not be taught in a science class.

I've already explained that Science is a part of ID. Derives from it. Is its offspring.

I'd like to suggest that there is another element back of this push for ID to be taught in public schools that we possibly don't talk about enough.

Though there's a rich and consistent history of "education in America is in crisis!" rhetoric going back to the early 1800s, the modern conservative movement has set itself to the task of 'reforming' public education with a particular vigor and focus.

In this discussion here, we've been mainly talking about the attempts by the religious wing of the movement (mainly reactionary evangelicals) to undo what they perceive as damage done to their literalist worldview from the logical or intellectual consequences of much scientific investigation, particularly the work of Darwin.

But the movement's assault on education has been far broader than that. Merely removing (even if they could) any mention of evolutionary theory from school curricula would not satisfy the movement's goals because the movement has other interested parties, often not religious at all, which have aligned themselves with the religious wing in order to accomplish separate goals. Horowitz's operation is the most obvious example. As well, the push for home schooling and for charter schools commonly comes out of movement groups who aren't necessarily religiously oriented.

There are three readily identifiable goals in what we see above. The more obvious one is the desire to turn back what this movement refers to as "liberalism".

A somewhat less obvious goal is to further expand the profit opportunities for private or corporate investment through moving education out of government and into the hands of those financial interests.

And there's a third goal as well, perhaps least obvious of all, and that is a strategic move to defund and de-organize the left through disempowering the teachers' unions. This has been an effective strategy of the modern conservative movement people and we see it at work elsewhere as in the 'faith-based inititatives' project where multi-millions in funding has moved away from government employees (and their union organizations' power) and into the hands of conservative organizations.

It's prudent, I think, to keep this broader stuff in mind.

When tolerance infringes on rights of others
(Linda Valdez, The Arizona Republic, March 8, 2008)

When does tolerance of other people's religious views become intolerable?

Does it happen when "tolerance" demands rejecting science and teaching children a creation myth, instead?

Does it happen when a reclusive polygamous religious cult sanctifies child sexual abuse?

Or when Harvard bans men from a campus gym because a few Muslim women felt uncomfortable with coed workouts?

My money is on Harvard.

Girls-only gym time will get the right wing's attention because (1) it involves a noted liberal-leaning university; and (2) it can be spun to look like special favors for women, something the good old boys hate worse than a stale cigar.

This is good, though, because it's time the right wing noticed what kowtowing to religion does to individual liberty.

The idea that religion is under attack and in need of accommodation was planted by right-wing politicians and nurtured by their media co-conspirators. After all, is there anything wrong with this country that can't be fixed with Christmas nativity scenes, prayer in school and a plaque in every courtroom listing the Ten Commandments?

Their arguments favor Christianity, but the result of too much deference to religion is being played out at Harvard.

At the request of the Harvard Islamic Society, women-only hours were instituted at the campus Quadrangle Recreational Athletic Center. It's being called accommodation.

It should be called discrimination.

Harvard student Lucy Caldwell wrote in the Harvard Crimson newspaper that "it's incorrect in a college setting to institute a policy in which half of the campus gets wronged or denied a resource that's supposed to be for everyone."

She got it. This is about rights, not religion. And, like feminism, it is about equal rights.

The United States had to be brought kicking and screaming to the realization that the phrase "all men are created equal" means men of all colors and women, too. But we got it. Equality is an inclusive, not an exclusive, value. So is liberty.

No religion should be allowed to trump that, especially one that teaches women should be separated from the mainstream male world.

And no one should get away with the argument that religion is under siege. Churches are tax-exempt. The free exercise of religion is protected by the Constitution. Religious leaders are highly respected.

Those are huge benefits.

Yet, since the Reagan years, the Republican Party has used the Big Lie that Godless liberals have created an atmosphere hostile to religion as its basis for selling a faith-based vision of government.

Some of my favorite ministers fight for social justice from a very Godly left-leaning perspective, but that's not what the GOP has in mind. The GOP support of religion is coercive, top down and corrosive to personal liberty.

The idea that somebody else's religious views should be allowed to interfere with a person's medical decisions is anathema to the concept of personal liberty. Yet the GOP seeks to control end-of-life and reproductive decisions - in the name of religion. Republican politicians justify denying homosexuals the same benefits the government grants heterosexual couples who marry - in the name of religion.

After all these years of GOP coddling, the religions in America have acquired a sense of entitlement that plays out in those recurring fights to teach creationism in public-school science class. It echoes in the polygamists' claims to religious freedom - claims that assume the rest of us will overlook the inherent lack of liberty those cults grant little girls, who are brainwashed to believe they won't get to heaven unless they become the child brides of middle-age guys with multiple wives.

Women have the most to lose when religion makes the rules in society because religion has historically "honored" women by blaming them for The Fall and restricting their freedom - for their own good, of course. As Islam gains strength here, are we going to move from separate gym hours to fully segregated schools? Will we debate whether women should drive? As migrants from Sudan, Chad, Sierra Leone and other African countries arrive with cultural and religious arguments for practicing female genital mutilation, do we accommodate that, too?

It's time for some lines.

At Harvard, the rights of men are being slighted along with those of non-Muslim women.

That should get the right wing's attention.

Girls-only gym time was a mistake by excessively open-minded liberals, but the foundation for putting religion above personal freedom was carefully laid by the GOP.

blatham, Excellent analysis; it provides many of us with new perspectives of this issue. Most of us concentrated on just one; introduce ID as part of science curriculum in our schools.

Thanks for sharing your insightful opinions.

I must have been getting a haircut when you "explained" all this. Of course , your explanations usually only make sense to you. SO whats the story?

....life being a drift of momentary acts, we must cultivate each moment to the full, seeking 'not the fruit of experience, but experience itself.'

Success in life is to burn always with this hard gemlike flame.

It's prudent, I think, to keep this broader stuff in mind.

I'd like to suggest that there is another element back of this push for ID to be taught in public schools that we possibly don't talk about enough.

Though there's a rich and consistent history of "education in America is in crisis!" rhetoric going back to the early 1800s, the modern conservative movement has set itself to the task of 'reforming' public education with a particular vigor and focus.

In this discussion here, we've been mainly talking about the attempts by the religious wing of the movement (mainly reactionary evangelicals) to undo what they perceive as damage done to their literalist worldview from the logical or intellectual consequences of much scientific investigation, particularly the work of Darwin.

But the movement's assault on education has been far broader than that. Merely removing (even if they could) any mention of evolutionary theory from school curricula would not satisfy the movement's goals because the movement has other interested parties, often not religious at all, which have aligned themselves with the religious wing in order to accomplish separate goals. Horowitz's operation is the most obvious example. As well, the push for home schooling and for charter schools commonly comes out of movement groups who aren't necessarily religiously oriented.

There are three readily identifiable goals in what we see above. The more obvious one is the desire to turn back what this movement refers to as "liberalism".

A somewhat less obvious goal is to further expand the profit opportunities for private or corporate investment through moving education out of government and into the hands of those financial interests.

And there's a third goal as well, perhaps least obvious of all, and that is a strategic move to defund and de-organize the left through disempowering the teachers' unions. This has been an effective strategy of the modern conservative movement people and we see it at work elsewhere as in the 'faith-based inititatives' project where multi-millions in funding has moved away from government employees (and their union organizations' power) and into the hands of conservative organizations.

It's prudent, I think, to keep this broader stuff in mind.

No religion should be allowed to trump that, especially one that teaches women should be separated from the mainstream male world.

Does it happen when a reclusive polygamous religious cult sanctifies child sexual abuse?

This is good, though, because it's time the right wing noticed what kowtowing to religion does to individual liberty.

nurtured by their media co-conspirators.

It should be called discrimination.

. And, like feminism, it is about equal rights.

Religious leaders are highly respected.

It is interesting to observe the gathering resurgence of parochial education here in California. I have two grandchildren just starting kindergarten at the local Catholic school -- it turns out there were twenty applicants for every available seat - mostly from secular parents, desperate to escape the mindless chaos of the public schools.

I think blatham deserves kudos for even introducing new ideas into this subject matter.