Clackamas Print
Wednesday, Nov. 30, 2005
Commentary 5
Intelligent Design’ not smart
[ople need to face
[facts; “Intelligent
esign ” isn’t science
,E. West
mi Editor
“In the beginning God cre-
d the heavens’ and the earth
For centuries these words
lithe stories that follow them
ed Europe as the sole expía-
ion for the origins of the
rid we live in. But this was
ing the Dark and Middle
es, when empirical observa-
íwas taking a long siesta.
In the centuries since the
aissance and Protestant
ormation, Europe and the
I of the world has learned to
b notice of the world around
m; to learn through care
observation the processes
¡which life and the universe
rks and apply the knowledge
ed for the benefit (and yes,
asionally the detriment) of
anity.
■To this end a procedure has
n developed by which we
| be reasonably assured that
1 own biases and a priori
pmptions do not insinuate
mselves into our investi
os, giving us potentially
ty and harmful conclusions.
I call this the “scientific
thod,” and it has produced
Bunding results.
today the process of scien
ce method is under attack in
■biology labs of public edu-
■on, the yery place it should
■e center stage. Education
■arils across the nation have
leen inundated with the cries of
■ocal minority of Americans
Iho wish to see Creationism
reintroduced into our
schools under the +
guise of a “scien- j
tific theory” called -3
Intelligent Design.
School boards .1
in more than half '1
a dozen states from J
. Pennsylvania
to Montana.
have con-
s i d e r e d.j
altering^
their cur-
- riculum •
to . incorjlll
p o r a t e
. ID.
One
state
in
particular
has gone I
further
than mere I
c o n s i d - I
eration.
,3
° n
Nov. fl
8
the
K a n s a s
Board of
Educational
voted
6
- 4 that
students
will
be
expected to
learn that
a vari-
• est
e v o -
lution-
ary con
cepts are
“contro
versial,”
a
battle-cry. of
Intelligent Design
advocates
who
stress that sympa
thetic educators
| should “teach
i the controver-
| sy” in order
| to undermine
t Darwinian
f evolution.
I The
board
does not have
the authority to
directly set cur-
riculum for local school dis
tricts, but by setting stan
dards for statewide testing
fc, they can do so in effect.
In order to allow ID in
Kansas schools the board
has had to do a bit of
creative reworking of the
definition of science. The
phrase “a search for expla
nations of observable phe
nomena” has been dropped
from the school board’s def
inition.
The reasoning • behind
| this is fairly logical: the
I emphasis on “observable”
I would make the inclusion
f of ID glaringly contradic-
f tory. This is because the
best that proponents of ID
can offer by way of proof
is that one can infer a cre
ator from the complexity of
life. The proponents of ID
are overwhelmingly funda
mentalist-Christians, and for
them to suggest that God can
be observed directly would
undermine their claim that
blind faith in Jesus Christ is
the only’path to salvation.
Take the empiricism out of
empirical science, they reason,
and one has a definition of sci
ence that will allow even reli
gious dogma as fact.
The effect of all this is
that students in Kansas pub
lic schools will not be taught
the central concept of sci
entific inquiry; that useful
and revolutionary things can
be learned through patient
and unbiased examination of
empirical data.
The supposed “theory”
of Intelligent Design meets
almost none of the criteria for
an acceptable scientific theory.
The idea has been rejected as a
working hypothesis by a vast
majority within the scientific
community who agree that evo
lution through natural selec
tion best explains our current
understanding of life, and who
further see the question of a
Creator as standing outside the
purview of proper natural sci
ence.
Thé Kansas Board of
Education was well aware of
this fact before their action.
In voting in the changes the
board was ignoring the rec
ommendations of a 26-mem-
ber science committee, the
National Academy of Sciences,
the National Science Teachers
Association and 37 Nobel lau
reates who wrote an impas
sioned plea for the board to
maintain a more mainstream
stance on evolution.
This debacle of bad poli
tics and even worse science
is fueled by a gross misunder
standing of science and sci
entific method itself. Since
most scientists agree that it’s
rather difficult to see God
through even the most pow
erful of telescopes, only the
rriost rash and arrogant of sci
entists will declare that God
does not exist. After all, it
is a maxim of science that
absence of evidence is not the
same as evidence of absence.
Science properly pursued
can make no claims about those
things that are above or beyond
the natural, phenomenal world.
Because of that, theology and
other pursuits that do make
claims about the supernatural
have no place in science cur
riculum.
God belongs in our inves
tigations of literature, phi
losophy and ethics, where we
contemplate the allegories and
-stories that guide us as moral
creatures. He does not belong
in the biology lab.
bin the forces of darkness: offer observational astronomy
laura Cameron
giumentari/ Editor
wasting resources is never
bod thing.
Polluted rivers, extinct spe-
s and outrageous gas prices
jail proof of this. Nobody
h to see something use-
go to waste, but that is
Ictly what’s happening here
■Clackamas Community
liege.
fVe have a beautiful,
ly functional astronomi-
lobservatory located right
here on campus. The Haggart
Memorial Observatory, tucked
away among the trees of
the Environmental Learning
Center, is a fantastic resource
for every student who has ever
looked up at night and been
filled with wonder. A 24-inch
refractor - perfect for view
ing deep-sky objects - and
a host of smaller telescopes
exist there for our viewing
pleasure.
With a facility like the
Haggart Observatory at its
disposal, most people would
expect the college :to be
offering a host of astronomy
courses centered around the
Observatory. I was shocked
upon my arrival at Clackamas
last year to discover that
the college offers not a sin
gle observational astronomy
class.
Astronomy is not complete
ly lacking from the course
list - two or three classes
can be found in the catalogue
each term. But astronomy is
really a twofold science, and.
Clackaihas only offers one
part of it: the physical side.
Take a look in the course
catalogue.
Astronomy is
almost always listed under
“physics.” Now, the physical
side of astronomy - orbital
dynamics and the like - is
both important and fascinat
ing. But there’s more to spy
ing the heavens than math.
If I take an astronomy
course, I don’t want to spend
it looking at pictures of stars
in books. I want to"bundle up
in a heavy jacket, pour up a
thermos of hot chocolate and
spend a cold, clear night in
intimate contact with an eye
piece, drinking in the wonder
of the universe.
Only
three
astronomy
courses were offered this
term,
All were physical
astronomy. All were online
courses. Meanwhile, the 24-
inch refractor sits idle most
nights, when it should be-
introducing another genera
tion of starry-eyed students
to the wonders of the Orion
Nebula, the jewel-like binary
system of alpha Scorpii, or
the crenulated terminator of
the moon.
What a shame.
What a
waste.