Abnormal Interests

First, we are supposed somehow to separate Intelligent Design from those who advocate it. If we do this, so says Waldman, we will see that Intelligent Design is just about the same thing that "Thomas Jefferson or other deists might have advocated." While there are many things wrong with these ideas, two standout for special mention. First, unless I've missed something, I have never heard that Intelligent Design equated with deism. Intelligent Design is, depending on the time of day and the person speaking, either a replacement of evolution or an adjunct to evolution. And evolution has nothing to do with how the first living thing came about. The deist god may have got things going but after that, the universe was on its own. Second, while no one knows what Jefferson and his contemporary enlightenment colleagues would think about any given subject on the table today, it is clear to me that modern biology is more in the spirit of the enlightenment than Intelligent Design creationism.

But the real reason that biologists should rally around Intelligent Design and religious conservatives should be worried is that,

54% of those surveyed in June did not believe humans developed from earlier species. The poll also said 64% said we were "created directly by God," while only 10% seemed to take the intelligent design view that "human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help

If scientists think they're convincing people about evolution by insisting that it alone be taught, they're wrong.

Conversely, having schools teach theories other than evolution may undermine their popularity, not enhance them--if the scientific community changes its attitude and strategy.

There are three big problems and one very big problem with this. First, every religious conservative family teaches their kids that anything their teachers say about evolution at school is not only wrong but damning. In addition, thousands of Churches and televangelist reinforce the same message. Second, as Brian Leiter says, "The less they know, the less they know it." Ignorance breeds ignorance. And the amount of scientific ignorance in the world is very great. Third, teachers who try to do a good job teaching biology are often faced with hostile, if ignorant, parents. I have written on this here and here.

And now the very big problem, if our schools do what Waldman is suggesting it will reinforce rather than replace the ignorance and dogma that make teaching biology so difficult. It will also take away precious classroom time for the discussion of irrelevant matters.

Now here's a corker:

Those who believe in serious science should say to those in the religious community: OK, we will teach the most commonly held views on human origin. The most commonly held theories are evolution, ID, and the biblical view. All should be subjected to equal scientific rigor.

Since neither ID nor the "biblical view" have any scientific content, they cannot be "subjected to equal scientific rigor." They simply do not raise or answer scientific questions. To be sure, some of their claims can be structured as scientific propositions. However, theseclaims are either trivial or false. Does Waldman really think we should teach false claims in a science class?

His argument about why Intelligent Design creationism and old fashioned creationism should not be taught in social studies classes stands the issue exactly on its head. Go read it yourself if you want to see what I mean.

There is a lot more nonsense in the document but there is one item with which I agree with.

Both sides in the debate seem to assume that "teaching a subject" means propagandizing for it. I suppose bad teachers do that. But good teachers--of anything--lay out the assertion and subject it to analysis. [emphasis added]

But I think I may take it a little differently than does Waldman. He thinks that last sentence supports his upside down position. While I agree with him that good teachers layout the assertions and subject them to analysis, good science teachers do it in the context of evidence and since there is not one shred of evidence in support of Intelligent Design creationism or the old fashion kind, they can only do their job in the context of modern biology.

The bottom line: there is nothing to teach but biology in a biology class.