Intelligent Design

Why intelligent design theory ought to be taught

Spread the love

Why intelligent design theory ought to be taught
By Jonah Avriel Cohen

Of the many reasons why intelligent design – an argument I reject – ought to be taught alongside evolution in our public schools, perhaps none is more compelling than the ignorance and demagoguery which is evident in our current national debate over the issue. Below are four myths you frequently come across while reading the political literature on the subject, followed by the facts.

MORE: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4761

9 Replies to “Why intelligent design theory ought to be taught

  1. 1
    JaredL says:

    I am satisfied that the author’s rejection criteria have been shown baseless. Someone oughtta send him NFL.

  2. 2
    Mats says:

    “none is more compelling than the ignorance and demagoguery which is evident in our current national debate over the issue”.

    I couldn’t agree more. After reading bits of the link posted below, I totally agree that people need to be informed that ID is not Creationism. By this, I don’t mean that it should “mandatory” and/or politically imposed.

    http://www.eurekalert.org/expe.....8/talk.php

  3. 3
    Ben Z says:

    I also find comfort that his rejection of ID is based on Hume, Kant, and Kiergegaard.

  4. 4
    DaveScot says:

    The author makes wonderful points about myths (I call them lies, actually) that NeoDarwinian narrative apologists and evangelists have made about ID. The author shoots down all the arguments that are used to make ID a violation of 1st amendment establishment clause. If if weren’t for those ID would have been in public education years ago because like it or not scientists aren’t the ones that get to decide what to teach in science classes – a majority of the people always have the final authority and in this case it only takes a simple majority unless there’s a constitional issue then it takes a supermajority of 75% of the states to change the constitution. ID doesn’t quite have a supermajority behind it (close but no cigar) but it certainly has a simple majority in many if not most states.

  5. 5
    crandaddy says:

    Kudos to Jonah Avriel Cohen! And again I say kudos! In this era of academic censorship, his article is by far the most fair, levelheaded critique of ID I’ve read from the mainstream media! This proves we are making headway with the public. And again I say kudos!!!

    David

  6. 6
    crandaddy says:

    I just sent an e-mail to Dr. Cohen. Let me know what you think:

    Dr. Cohen,

    My name is [snip], and I am a college undergraduate from the United States. The Intelligent Design (ID) movement first caught my eye a little less than a year ago, and I became instantly facinated with it. I did not have to research the movement for very long before I discovered a bitter, vitriolic hatred for both the concept of intelligent design in nature and those who support it. This frustrated me greatly, not because I find many of the arguments for ID to be quite plausible, but rather because most anti-ID arguments present an image of the movement and its supporters that is blatantly false! The people who present such arguments have the audacity to charge ID with being “unscientific,” “anti-science,” and “intellectual McCarthyism” when it is, in fact, they who commit these grievous sins! I applaud you, Dr. Cohen, for the fairness and intellectual honesty you display in your article “Why intelligent design theory ought to be taught.” Now prepare yourself for the venomous onslaught you will, no doubt, receive from the all-too-devoted adherents of St. Charles’ sacred doctrine.

    Sincerely,

    [snip]

  7. 7
    Derek says:

    Notice though that some of these reasons are in direct conflict with a number of standard arguments in favor of teaching ID.

    For instance, the article here says that, far from being a new idea, ID is quite an old hypothesis. Compare that to Dembski recent reply to George Will in which he insists that the ID he advocates is in fact new and cutting edge. You can’t have it both ways.

  8. 8
    crandaddy says:

    Derek: “For instance, the article here says that, far from being a new idea, ID is quite an old hypothesis. Compare that to Dembski recent reply to George Will in which he insists that the ID he advocates is in fact new and cutting edge. You can’t have it both ways.”

    You misunderstand Dembski’s point. He has said, himself, that intelligent design is a very old hypothesis. What he means is that, whereas in the past, all we have had to rely upon is our intuition, we are now able to subject ID to the rigors of the scientific method.

    David

  9. 9
    DaveScot says:

    ID is an ancient concept. Dembski’s math applied to biochemical constructs is new.

Leave a Reply