More on Intelligent (?) Design
- From: Lance <LanceGary@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 01:19:48 +0200
Did God turn monkeys into men? DAMIEN HENDERSON August 11 2005
IT began life as a radical challenge to the biblical version of how we began.
Nearly 150 years on, however, it is the opponents of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection who have been forced to evolve. Intelligent design (ID), the latest religious challenge to Darwinism, has received backing as far apart as Kansas and Australia this week, to the alarm of secular educationists. The theory, which argues that a creator played a hand in human evolution, yesterday won the tentative support of the Kansas board of education after months of debate over science and religion. The move is regarded as a significant milestone in the US, where a strict separation between church and state has historically been observed. In Australia yesterday, Brendan Nelson, the education minister in John Howard's conservative government, also gave his support to teaching the theory, but stressed that it should not be seen as replacing scientific thinking on the origins of mankind. It follows the public intervention of George W Bush on the subject last week, when he said that teaching ID would help children understand the debate over the origins of the universe. But his comments, given at a press conference in Texas, have alarmed some educationists who have perceived it as an attack on the values of secular teaching. ID has been championed by US churches as a credible alternative to the theory that mankind evolved gradually through a process of natural selection. It differs from biblical creationism in that it does not follow the literal teachings of the Bible in the book of Genesis. While accepting that evolution has played a role in man's development, ID argues that life is too complex to be reduced to a series of chance developments and that an "unseen power" must have helped in the process. However, its critics have derided ID as "creeping creationism" without scientific backing. ID has sparked debate in American Christian circles over whether it should be taught in the classroom. Rick Santorum, a Republican senator on the religious right, said he was cautious about how ID should be taught. "I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom. "What we should be teaching are the problems and holes in the theory of evolution." But the theory has gained significant popular support among the American public, which holds creationist theory in high esteem. An opinion poll conducted in June found that 55% of a sample of 1000 American adults believed that creationism and ID should be taught in schools. The same survey found that 54% did not believe that humans had developed from an earlier species. Mr Bush's championing of ID has added weight to the movement, which is making in-roads across America. The theory has so far failed to gain a foothold in Britain, where creationism is viewed with far greater scepticism than in America. Terry Sanderson, vice-president of the National Secular Society, said the theory was "mythology posing as science". He added: "The idea that George Bush, the most powerful man in the world, is going along with this stone-age mentality is extraordinarily dangerous. "We are very worried at the fact that some wonderful advances in scientific research would become retarded if intelligent design, which has no evidence to support it, was to catch on." Dr Richard Holloway, the former Episcopalian bishop of Edinburgh, said he had sympathy with some versions of ID, but that it had no place being taught in classrooms. "I think that if religions want to teach their version of the natural order it's up to them. But I don't think it's the purpose of schools, which are there to teach science and history." However, Ronnie Smith, general secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland, said he would be relaxed about such theories being taught in a religious studies context. Alternative theory Intelligent design has received its most reputable support from the Discovery Institute, a conservative think-tank established in 1990 in Seattle. The theory has been developed by hundreds of mostly Christian scientists, engineers, philosophers and theologians as an alternative to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, unveiled 150 years ago in the Origin of Species. In Darwin's Black Box, one of the most influential expositions of ID, author Michael Behe argues that living organisms containing ingenious structures such as the eye, are too complex to have evolved by chance, and that therefore a creator must have been involved. William Dembski, head of the centre for intelligent design at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kentucky, is among those using mathematical models to argue that natural selection cannot account for nature's complexity. The promotion of ID in American schools follows a Supreme Court ruling which banned the teaching of creationism alongside evolutionism as a violation of the separation of church and state.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/44774-print.shtml .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: More on Intelligent (?) Design
- From: Smolley
- Re: More on Intelligent (?) Design
- Prev by Date: Re: IQ for robots
- Next by Date: Re: Liberalism and Humanism
- Previous by thread: Chimps and culture
- Next by thread: Re: More on Intelligent (?) Design
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading