Intelligent Design

How Evolution Will Be Taught Someday

Spread the love

We need to face the fact that it may still be a very long time before the majority of scientists will take seriously the idea that a designer may have been directly involved in the origin and development of life. However, it may not be nearly so long before they will at least finally acknowledge that science has no clue about the “natural” causes involved. I have written a short article, submitted to several publications without success so far, which encourages readers to think about what it will be like when this happens. It will, in my opinion, be a much improved world.

Here begins the article, entitled “How Evolution Will Be Taught Someday”:

A 1980 New York Times News Service article, reporting on a meeting at the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History of “nearly all the leading evolutionists in paleontology, population genetics, taxonomy and related fields”, begins:

Biology’s understanding of how evolution works, which has long postulated a gradual process of Darwinian natural selection acting on genetic mutations, is undergoing its broadest and deepest revolution in nearly 50 years. At the heart of the revolution is something that might seem a paradox. Recent discoveries have only strengthened Darwin’s epochal conclusion that all forms of life evolved from a common ancestor…At the same time, however, many studies suggest that the origin of species was not the way Darwin suggested…

the rest of the article is here.

3 Replies to “How Evolution Will Be Taught Someday

  1. 1
    racdale says:

    How will design be taught? Through what sacred book? Talmud? Bible? Koran?

    A few words of explanation about what would supercede this pedagogy would be helpful, if you have anything.

  2. 2
    kairosfocus says:

    Hi Racdale:

    Perhaps you should first think about the fundamental issue at stake: whether agents make designs, and whether we can by examinaiton of hte empirical data in certain given cases, credibly distinguish agent action and chance plus necessity without agent action.

    The Design inference is that this is possible and frequently done, even in the Courtroom. [For instance, when a certain preferred political party comes up trumps on election ballots 40 out of 41 times, is that chance or intent?]

    In the context of Biology, let us observe a well-known contrast:

    Dembski: intelligent design is . . . a scientific investigation into how patterns exhibited by finite arrangements of matter can signify intelligence.

    Dawkins: biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. [Elsewhere, he defines that systems which only appear to be designed should be viewed as designoid.]

    Meanwhile I suggestyou look at the introductory level discussion here [or even just in my own always linked . . .], before rushing off to the strawmannish and ad hominem-laced assumption/ assertion/ prejudice that inference to design is necessarily a religious doctrine rather than a serious scientific project.

    GEM of TKI

  3. 3
    Granville Sewell says:

    Racdale: I believe firmly that the origin and development of life could not have happened without design; however, I will admit that I am not sure when, where or how design came into the picture. I admit that this makes teaching design in a science class problematic, and I can understand the objections to this. That is why–contrary to what you have apparently been told–most ID proponents do NOT advocate teaching ID in science classes. However, the fear that ID will fill the void if problems with Darwinism are acknowledged is no excuse for ramming such a woefully inadequate theory down the throats of biology students.

    Jean Rostand, in “A Biologist’s View”, (1956) who called Darwinism “a fairy tale for adults,” says

    “Some people may perhaps feel that such a confession of ignorance plays into the hands of those who are still fighting the doctrine of evolution. But quite apart from the fact that the most elementary intellectual honesty demands that we should say ‘I do not know’ where we believe that this is so, I think that this doctrine is now so solidly grounded on its own merits that it needs no support from false advocacy. I must add that however obscure the causes of evolution appear to me to be, I do not doubt for a moment that they are entirely natural. We have ample time to discover them…”

    I would not object to having Jean Rostand teaching evolution in our schools. I do strongly object to having courts decide that scientific challenges to Darwinism in the classroom are illegal, because all such challenges are religiously motivated.

Leave a Reply