Manufactured Controversy

If the ID folks actually were to do the work involved in creating such a theory, doing the experimentation and observation necessary to back it up and get their work peer reviewed, it WOULD be accepted by science. Unfortunately, the main proponents of Intelligent Design Theory have no interest in doing that; they’d rather just fabricate controversy, pretending that the mean-old scientists just won’t let them play because scientists hate Christians.

Jer does a very nice job of laying out one of the base-level issues with the ongoing and neverending “debate” over Intelligent Design: “[the actual issue is extremely simple: Intelligent Design is not science, and thus doesn’t belong in science classrooms.][1]”

[1]: http://nyquil.org/archives/1162-Manufactured-Controversy-Roger-Ebert-helps-illustrate-problems-with-the-debate-over-Intelligent-Design.html “Manufactured Controversy: Roger Ebert helps illustrate problems with the ‘debate’ over Intelligent Design”

> As of now, the opposition to the teaching of Intelligent Design in science classrooms is as follows: scientific theories are based upon the notion that observations and evidence overwhelmingly back them up. Intelligent Design theory posits no such testable, observable theories. All their time and energy is spent finding problems with portions of the evolution model, which, while actually pretty useful, is not the same thing as positing a theory of their own. The notion that everything was created by an intelligent force is a nice notion — one which I happen to believe — but it is not the same thing as a scientific theory. If you want to do science, then you have to do considerably more than just come up with a nice notion.
>
> ID proponents (and Ben Stein’s film) portray themselves as being “shut out” by science, that what they’re doing is being ignored on the grounds that it attacks the accepted model, and that science is akin to persecution of religion. This simply isn’t true. If the ID folks actually were to do the work involved in creating such a theory, doing the experimentation and observation necessary to back it up and get their work peer reviewed, it WOULD be accepted by science. Unfortunately, the main proponents of Intelligent Design Theory have no interest in doing that; they’d rather just fabricate controversy, pretending that the mean-old scientists just won’t let them play because scientists hate Christians.
>
> Sadly, it’s far easier to rile up congregations and make them feel persecuted than to actually do the science they purport they’re doing. By portraying evolution as anti-religion while claiming persecution at the hands of scientists, they’ve painted an inaccurate portrait of the “debate.” People with no understanding at all of science now feel that their viewpoint ought be represented where it simply doesn’t belong. This two-faced approach is nothing short of dishonest, and I personally feel that the level of dishonesty exhibited suggests that it’s not just misguided, but also intentional.

Author: djwudi

Enthusiastic ambivert. Geeky, liberal, friendly, curious, feminist ally; trying to be a good person. (he/him)

0 thoughts on “Manufactured Controversy”

  1. I was brought up a Creationist~ one of the biggest challenges for me was to be open to “alternative” explanations~such as Evolution. After reading Gould and chatting with others I made the change~many of my family pray for me because of that. Such is life :-)

    Besides ID not fulfilling the definition of science, in that it cannot be tested to show it is falsifiable, there is another issue that tends to be ignored by both sides of the debate.

    ID does not ask that other ways of explaining the purpose and meaning of life be included in school science education, such as American Indian or Indigenous Australian concepts of Creation/Cosmology.

    Sure, Evolution is a theory~though one that remains because it can provide answers and guide new knowledge development. There are other theories~First Nations across the globe promote alternative explanations for life on Earth~it would be respectful to acknowledge these as well.

    Tho they, by Western definition of science, are not science either. However, this doesn’t mean that they have nothing to offer us. For example, Indigenous Australian beliefs in a Dreamtime guide “burning of country” practices, practices which Western science is now using quantitative studies to investigate as the practice has beneficial outcomes for conservation and agriculture.

    However ID is not a First Nation philosophy. And it serves only to reinforce the belief of “one” way~which happens to be white~how unusual.

Leave a Reply