Point-Counterpoint: Intelligent Design (Part 1 of 2)
Point: Fair grounds for origin of life
Adam Holtz & William Mulgrew
Issue date: 2/2/07 Section: Ed-Op
Some argue that since intelligent design has religious implications, or since some of its proponents are religiously motivated, it shouldn't be taught in the classroom, especially in public schools. The ridiculousness of this standard can be seen if we apply it to other professions and courses. We don't censor age-appropriate novels that deal with the subject of death because death has religious implications. ("What happens when I die?") Moreover, we expect professionals to tell us the truth even when it's inconvenient to our prejudices, as well as theirs.
The argument that ID is religious theism in disguise makes as much sense as that Darwinism is religious atheism in disguise. Many have conceded as much. The physicist Hubert Yockey writes, "The belief that life on Earth arose spontaneously from nonliving matter, is simply a matter of faith in strict reductionism and is based entirely on ideology."
Darwinism has religious implications. The Big Bang has religious implications. Whatever religious inferences people independently form is not how we measure credibility. We measure credibility by evidence, not motivation. To suggest otherwise is erroneous, disingenuous, and unnecessary. It serves only as a cop-out for those who are afraid to study the merits of ID.
A student asked Mark Lamontia, when he gave an ID lecture at Drexel, if his argument was scientific or religious. He said it was an engineering argument. This raises the question, what is science? Science is grounded in philosophy. The scientific method, the laws of logic, the Law of Causality, the Principle of Uniformity - all are philosophical assumptions that science cannot prove. Reason is also something that science cannot prove; yet we place faith in it.
Opponents of ID insist that since it is not science, it must be religion. However, religion has its own definition as well, and ID doesn't fit. Religion deals with the character of the designer and what expectations he or she has on your life. When pressed, Lamontia admitted that he is a theist, but he said that isn't relevant with respect to ID. ID does not rely on any religious texts; it's not creationism in that it attempts to prove that life formed according to the Book of Genesis, and it does not speculate on the identity of the designer. Perhaps Campus Crusade for Christ contributed in part to this confusion by hosting Lamontia, since the group is unequivocally motivated by religion, but the fact remains that ID is not religious.
The argument that ID is religious theism in disguise makes as much sense as that Darwinism is religious atheism in disguise. Many have conceded as much. The physicist Hubert Yockey writes, "The belief that life on Earth arose spontaneously from nonliving matter, is simply a matter of faith in strict reductionism and is based entirely on ideology."
Darwinism has religious implications. The Big Bang has religious implications. Whatever religious inferences people independently form is not how we measure credibility. We measure credibility by evidence, not motivation. To suggest otherwise is erroneous, disingenuous, and unnecessary. It serves only as a cop-out for those who are afraid to study the merits of ID.
A student asked Mark Lamontia, when he gave an ID lecture at Drexel, if his argument was scientific or religious. He said it was an engineering argument. This raises the question, what is science? Science is grounded in philosophy. The scientific method, the laws of logic, the Law of Causality, the Principle of Uniformity - all are philosophical assumptions that science cannot prove. Reason is also something that science cannot prove; yet we place faith in it.
Opponents of ID insist that since it is not science, it must be religion. However, religion has its own definition as well, and ID doesn't fit. Religion deals with the character of the designer and what expectations he or she has on your life. When pressed, Lamontia admitted that he is a theist, but he said that isn't relevant with respect to ID. ID does not rely on any religious texts; it's not creationism in that it attempts to prove that life formed according to the Book of Genesis, and it does not speculate on the identity of the designer. Perhaps Campus Crusade for Christ contributed in part to this confusion by hosting Lamontia, since the group is unequivocally motivated by religion, but the fact remains that ID is not religious.
Be the first to comment on this story