Frist Backs Intelligent Design
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Religion, ScienceFrist, a doctor who graduated from Harvard Medical School, said exposing children to both evolution and intelligent design “doesn’t force any particular theory on anyone. I think in a pluralistic society that is the fairest way to go about education and training people for the future.”
I agree that people should be exposed to many different ideas, but teaching this stuff in science class is just plain wrong. It’s not a scientific theory and it never will be. If you want to teach it, do so in literature class or something where the context is more appropriate. Because faith and the scientific method simply don’t mix.
The AP also covered Frist and intelligent design.
(HT: memeorandum)
This entry was posted on Saturday, August 20th, 2005 and is filed under Religion, Science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 20th, 2005 at 9:45 pm
I always find it strange that scientific people feel that intelligent design rests solely on faith and that Darwinism depends not a whit on faith.
BS The idea that life somehow magically appeared on earth, followed by conscious thought and then the incredible complexity and sophitication of life on this earth is due solely to chance and natural selection strikes me as requiring just as much faith as intelligent design.
The two theories are not mutually exclusive.
August 20th, 2005 at 10:41 pm
While there is much proof to back the theory of evolution, there is (to my knowledge) none for ID. Provide the proof and we’ll have discussion. But many of the IDers have similar arguments as this one. “Evolution is a crazy theory too.” Well, that doesn’t make ID valid, especially when what you’re saying is simply your opinion and not backed up with any solid evidence.
The point being is that this “idea” is being printed in science textbooks with no caveats as to its validity. Don’t you think that’s a bit odd? ID just popped up on the national scene about a year ago, and already it has this much traction? Why?
August 21st, 2005 at 5:14 am
I’m with Gardner on this. While my faith in a Christian god and the Bible do give me sympathy towards the idea of ID, it isn’t a scientific theory – it is a spirtual and philosophical position. Nothing more.
August 21st, 2005 at 6:35 pm
The “somehow magically appeared on earth” canard is a classic straw man.
And the appeal of Frist (and others) to the basic American political notion of “equal time” and the “free market” of ideas is transparently deceptive. Those are our basic political and social values. But science is not a democratic, majority-rules process. It’s ruthlessly elitist, bound by what fits the facts and is internally consistent, not what pleases the masses.
August 22nd, 2005 at 10:42 am
“Because faith and the scientific method simply don’t mix.”
The scientific method depends on scepticism. Actually faith does too, as opposed to belief. Belief is about certainties, where faith, as in a realtionship with God, depends more on discovery, and scepticsim is a necessary part odf discovery.
Back to the main question. Evolution as a theory is like the Indo-European theory – never proveable, but by now nearly impossible to disprove. Newton’s explanation of gravity is probably in the same class. Both have shown really good predictive power, both account for the data in principled ways, without ad hoc crutches. The burden is on the critics now, and they don’t come close to making their case.
August 22nd, 2005 at 11:54 am
“While there is much proof to back the theory of evolution, there is (to my knowledge) none for ID.”
There is proof to back ‘micro-evolution’ but I’ve never heard of any ‘proof’ to back ‘macro-evolution’, if it exists, where at???
“ID just popped up on the national scene about a year ago, and already it has this much traction? Why? ”
Um, no – the Bible has been around a little longer than that….
Most people don’t understand that evolution does not cover how life began, but just how it got to it’s current form. ID is ‘supposed’ to be an explaination on how life began.
I kind of agree with Tom that: The two theories are not mutually exclusive.
Everybody has their own belief, you won’t change anybody’s mind on it.
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:01 pm
Debsay,
I believe we had to come from a creator of some sort. But again, until we have some proof of that, I think we owe it to our students to put information in the proper context. That’s all I ask.
And my mistake. The iDers have been around for about 5 years, but they just started getting some serious notice last year when they were allowed to put their information in science books.
Also, if I were you, I’d do a little bit more research into ID before saying anything else about it. Some of your comments can be read as not knowing what ID is really about, especially the bible comment. Here’s a link to Intelligent Design Network: http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
August 22nd, 2005 at 3:31 pm
Jim, Newton’s Theory of Gravity has been shown to be insufficient in extreme cases. That’s what a good deal of Einstein’s work was about.
debsay, if ID comes directly from the Bible as you state, then it ought to be out of the public school curriculum, period.
I have a question about ID, and perhaps someone can enlighten me on this. If there is an Intelligent Designer, and we are the end state of this design, why did the Designer take so long to get to this state? In particular, why bother with the ~160 million year Reign of the Dinosaur? Mammilian ancestors go back well before that, and true mammals appear around the same time as dinosaurs appear. (Dinosaurs beat ‘em out for dominance, though.) Why did the Designer waste all of that time on what was essentially a dead end?
August 23rd, 2005 at 7:42 am
Justin,
Sorry about that, when I think of ID I’m not necessarily thinking of the ‘movement’ per se, just the concept… which has been around longer than the Bible. If you believe in God, and you believe that God created everything that is automatically an ID belief, even if you don’t belong to the ‘movement’.
“I believe we had to come from a creator of some sort. But again, until we have some proof of that, I think we owe it to our students to put information in the proper context. That’s all I ask.”
I haven’t taken any of these classes in *many* years, are they teaching that the macro-evolution that we have 0 evidence of is just an educated guess or is that just taught as part of evolution???? Do you think that we owe it to our students to put it in the proper context? If not, then why?
Icepick,
Nobody has suggested that we teach straight out of the Bible, just that there is also a theory that suggest that randomness might not explain the complexity of life. There isn’t any ‘proof’ one way or the other, why only take one side and insist that the other not be mentioned? You don’t even have to mention that awful G word.