Intelligent design, maybe; honest argument, nope
The King's School is, some would say, many might not care to argue, Australia's most venerable high school. It is a Christian Anglican institution. No one would accuse its students of carrying away the honours in the HSC scoreboard, but you ought to see its cricket pitch. And its magnificent grounds. And its snazzy uniforms. It is the oldest of the Australian old boy schools. And I have known some fine young men who have gone there. Nothing against them.
And when its Headmaster speaks, it gets front page reportage. This from today's front page SMH (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/backing-for-intelligent-design/2005/10/27/1130400311078.html):
"The headmaster of The King's School has thrown his support behind the discussion of the contentious theory of intelligent design in the nation's secondary schools. Tim Hawkes has warned against gagging debate in schools on the theory, which argues that gaps in Charles Darwin's theory of evolution point to an "intelligent designer" of life.
"There are undeniable weaknesses within Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and these must be acknowledged honestly," he writes. "Failure to do so would mean an abrogation of our responsibility as educators." Dr Hawkes says that without necessarily pushing any particular religion, it is "quite legitimate to challenge students to think through the implications of there being a 'grand architect' of the universe". [Or the implications of begging the question.]
"Of all places, schools should be allowed to explore ideas and theories," Dr Hawkes said yesterday. "If we're all of a sudden going to get precious and say, 'Well, hang on, exploring this theory, this suggestion, is not to be allowed', then in fact I think we are being dishonest as educators."
That is a thoroughly dishonest wedge argument. This is what he's on about:
"Intelligent design is as unscientific as the flat Earth theory and should not be taught in school science classes, a coalition representing 70,000 scientists and science teachers has warned. "To do so would make a mockery of Australian science teaching and throw open the door of science classes to similarly unscientific world views - be they astrology, spoon bending, flat Earth cosmology or alien abductions."
(http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/intelligent-design-not-science-experts/2005/10/20/1129775902661.html; and see http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/09/make-equal-time-for-intelligent-design.html)
Do you see anywhere in that position statement by scientists of any intent to gag discussion of intelligent design in schools? Do you see in there any notion in the scientific view that explanation or exploration of the intelligent design belief is not to be allowed? Absolutely not. The ID adherents are making some kind of Free Speech appeal, but their freedom to speak is not contested; it is certainly not a logical argument.
The scientists are saying that the intelligence design argument is simply not science and should not be "taught" in science classes. In philosophy or religion, maybe, but not science classes.
It is fraudulently dishonest to suggest, as Dr Hawkins and other intelligent design faith believers do, that anyone is trying to gag or disallow their little game, and shame on them for saying so. It is filthy deceit and deceptive "argument". Scientists are not objecting to the ID belief systems. They simply say that such belief system subject matter is just not the stuff of science classes. It is as inappropriate as having scientists sit in on their religion courses and point out the chemical processes that prevent water from ever turning into wine.
Why don't they leave the science classes alone and try for, say, history classes? After all, how did history begin? Do you think they'd go away if they were allowed in history classes at the price of keeping them out of science classes? No, of course not. Education is not their purpose. Proselytising is.
Spreading the faith. Now if they could only first agree, in their religion classes, which faith is the one true religion, then maybe they might not cause much harm. But that's got a snowball's chance in Guam. Just the same, if that were an acceptable precondition, the scientists would never have to worry about having them in class.
And when its Headmaster speaks, it gets front page reportage. This from today's front page SMH (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/backing-for-intelligent-design/2005/10/27/1130400311078.html):
"The headmaster of The King's School has thrown his support behind the discussion of the contentious theory of intelligent design in the nation's secondary schools. Tim Hawkes has warned against gagging debate in schools on the theory, which argues that gaps in Charles Darwin's theory of evolution point to an "intelligent designer" of life.
"There are undeniable weaknesses within Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and these must be acknowledged honestly," he writes. "Failure to do so would mean an abrogation of our responsibility as educators." Dr Hawkes says that without necessarily pushing any particular religion, it is "quite legitimate to challenge students to think through the implications of there being a 'grand architect' of the universe". [Or the implications of begging the question.]
"Of all places, schools should be allowed to explore ideas and theories," Dr Hawkes said yesterday. "If we're all of a sudden going to get precious and say, 'Well, hang on, exploring this theory, this suggestion, is not to be allowed', then in fact I think we are being dishonest as educators."
That is a thoroughly dishonest wedge argument. This is what he's on about:
"Intelligent design is as unscientific as the flat Earth theory and should not be taught in school science classes, a coalition representing 70,000 scientists and science teachers has warned. "To do so would make a mockery of Australian science teaching and throw open the door of science classes to similarly unscientific world views - be they astrology, spoon bending, flat Earth cosmology or alien abductions."
(http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/intelligent-design-not-science-experts/2005/10/20/1129775902661.html; and see http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/09/make-equal-time-for-intelligent-design.html)
Do you see anywhere in that position statement by scientists of any intent to gag discussion of intelligent design in schools? Do you see in there any notion in the scientific view that explanation or exploration of the intelligent design belief is not to be allowed? Absolutely not. The ID adherents are making some kind of Free Speech appeal, but their freedom to speak is not contested; it is certainly not a logical argument.
The scientists are saying that the intelligence design argument is simply not science and should not be "taught" in science classes. In philosophy or religion, maybe, but not science classes.
It is fraudulently dishonest to suggest, as Dr Hawkins and other intelligent design faith believers do, that anyone is trying to gag or disallow their little game, and shame on them for saying so. It is filthy deceit and deceptive "argument". Scientists are not objecting to the ID belief systems. They simply say that such belief system subject matter is just not the stuff of science classes. It is as inappropriate as having scientists sit in on their religion courses and point out the chemical processes that prevent water from ever turning into wine.
Why don't they leave the science classes alone and try for, say, history classes? After all, how did history begin? Do you think they'd go away if they were allowed in history classes at the price of keeping them out of science classes? No, of course not. Education is not their purpose. Proselytising is.
Spreading the faith. Now if they could only first agree, in their religion classes, which faith is the one true religion, then maybe they might not cause much harm. But that's got a snowball's chance in Guam. Just the same, if that were an acceptable precondition, the scientists would never have to worry about having them in class.
Labels: Mother nature, Religiosity
posted by Guambat Stew at Friday, October 28, 2005
1 Comments:
And the science textbooks scheduled for next year are written by authors such as Isaac Asimov, L. Sprague de Camp, Anne McCaffery and Eric von Daniken.
Post a Comment
<< Home