[Speed Gibson,
Monday October 3, 2005 at 9:10am]
Intelligent Design vs Evolution
Sunday's "OpEx" section in Sunday's Minneapolis Star Tribune had a theme, an all out assault on "Intelligent Design" vs evolution. The common theme is that science based on observable evidence is preferable to faith and traditions of those who went before us. By "preferable" is meant total exclusion, even though the science may be incomplete.
The concept of Intelligent Design (ID) holds that human life scientifically is a fantastically unlikely product of fantastically unlikely, and seemingly unrelated constructs, like having a planetary magetic field to fend off solar flares into the Van Allen radiation belts. Physics, chemistry, geology, biology, astronomy, meteorology, even mathematics itself show an immense complexity of operation that somehow runs itself.
Lately, ID has been somewhat hijacked to discredit evolution for those who find the latter religiously unacceptable. But they are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, evolution itself is another facet of that Intelligent Design in question. But since ID necessarily has a religious component, stipulating that a higher power built this island Earth, this is unacceptable to liberals.
Having been exposed to the almost beautiful symmetry of Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism, having considered the awesome expanse of the universe, understanding how by sheer numbers atomic-level chaos aggregates into predictable effects at the human level, considering the rich tapestry of just a few dozen elements can create, how can I deny the existence of that higher power? Evolution doesn't explain atomic particles, gravity, or the three basic states of matter. But I want it taught.
The obvious solution is to present the evidence and theoretical basis for evolution such as it is, being careful not to project it as an explanation of creation itself. For I also want students to consider what lies beyond.
The concept of Intelligent Design (ID) holds that human life scientifically is a fantastically unlikely product of fantastically unlikely, and seemingly unrelated constructs, like having a planetary magetic field to fend off solar flares into the Van Allen radiation belts. Physics, chemistry, geology, biology, astronomy, meteorology, even mathematics itself show an immense complexity of operation that somehow runs itself.
Lately, ID has been somewhat hijacked to discredit evolution for those who find the latter religiously unacceptable. But they are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, evolution itself is another facet of that Intelligent Design in question. But since ID necessarily has a religious component, stipulating that a higher power built this island Earth, this is unacceptable to liberals.
Having been exposed to the almost beautiful symmetry of Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism, having considered the awesome expanse of the universe, understanding how by sheer numbers atomic-level chaos aggregates into predictable effects at the human level, considering the rich tapestry of just a few dozen elements can create, how can I deny the existence of that higher power? Evolution doesn't explain atomic particles, gravity, or the three basic states of matter. But I want it taught.
The obvious solution is to present the evidence and theoretical basis for evolution such as it is, being careful not to project it as an explanation of creation itself. For I also want students to consider what lies beyond.