ID: one more time without feeling

The idea of intelligent design has a long and proud tradition. Its roots go back to the time when the human intellect first became developed enough to ask general and abstract questions about the cosmos. Great philosophers have argued in favor of it. Many incredibly intelligent people believe it.

From a pragmatic viewpoint I don't have much emotional attachment to the idea of intelligent design one way or the other. I don't believe that a supernatural intelligent designer intervenes in the the natural world on a regular basis, but that is merely because I believe that science provides better evidence and proof as to how the natural world works, and have yet to find an explanation of how the intelligent designer goes about her work. Should someone ask me how everything began, I can sincerely and honestly reply, it beats the heck out of me.

As far as philosophical and theological questions go, intelligent design questions don't currently rank high on my list.

I do feel passionately about the political issues surrounding intelligent design being taught in science classes.

During the past several hundred years science has refined its methods and practices to achieve an incredible expansion in human knowledge about the natural cosmos. Scientific findings have been used to create a better life for humans. These wonderful results of the scientific method, however, do not mean that the scientific method says anything of import about philosophical issues like intelligent design. If someone believes that science and its methods speak against an intelligent designer, then that person is taking a philosophical or religious position. Belief in god and scientific knowledge is not necessarily an inconsistent set of beliefs. Many people believe in science and god. I expect most do.

Every art, craft, and science has generally accepted methods and practices it uses to pursue excellence in its particular field. Those methods and practices may change over time as people learn better ways to do things, but method and practice should not be denigrated just because of that. Part of the goal of education is to pass along those methods and practices with the body of knowledge under study. Educating this way seems to give good results so we continue to do it. Educating this way does not make any claims to philosophical hegemony for any one body of knowledge, method, or practice.

The generally accepted methods and practices of the sciences do not use hypotheses and theories that postulate supernatural beings as explanations for natural phenomena under study. Scientists have practical chores to do and they have decided that supernatural hypotheses don't help them get along with their work.

Intelligent design is a belief in supernatural beings and as such it has elements of religious belief. The Constitution has been consistently interpreted as forbidding the teaching of religious belief in public schools. Separating church and state in the United States has helped the country avoid many of the evils and disasters of states who do not do it. It protects the polity and religion. As ideals go, this has been one that the United States can rightfully be proud of.

When I went to high school we did not have a philosophy class in our curriculum. I wish we had. I love philosophy. Learning and debating about philosophical issues such as intelligent design and the existence of god would have been great sport for me. The key here is that the issues should be taught in philosophy class and not as received religious belief.

I have no emotional investment in who believes in intelligent design or why they believe it. I do have a lot of emotional investment in the Constitution of the United States and those rights which it guarantees. Teaching intelligent design in a biology class is a violation of the separation of church and state. Presenting the philosophical issues surrounding the idea of intelligent design in a philosophy class is not.

The question remains as to whether that is a productive use of class time given the constellation of philosophical ideas and issues to choose from. One could imagine a lot of relevant philosophical issues such as feminist issues, theories of political philosophy, etc. vying for a place in a high school curriculum. I know the curriculum is already jam packed.

When I oppose teaching ID in biology class, I am simply defending the first amendment to the Constitution. It is a good amendment and I really like it.