natalie’s blog

“In Kansas, conservative school-board members are attempting to rewrite statewide standards for teaching evolution to make sure that creationism’s modern stepchild, intelligent design, infiltrates the curriculum.”

Don’t you just love the way Charles Krauthammer clearly articulates in this New York Times article to all of his readers exactly what is going on here in Kansas? At the conclusion of this advocacy to continue to teach exclusively an evolutionary view of the origin of life in our public schools he states,

“To teach faith as science is to undermine the very idea of science, which is the acquisition of new knowledge through hypothesis, experimentation and evidence…Faith can and should be proclaimed from every mountaintop and city square. But it has no place in science class. To impose it on the teaching of evolution is not just to invite ridicule but to earn it.”

Besides being narrow-minded and intolerant of other views of the origin of life, Mr. Krauthammer is basing his essay on the faulty notion that it is possible to separate faith (or a belief system of some sort) from science. Carl Wieland points out this all-too-often overlooked truth in his article on the Intelligent Design Movement,

“The origins issue has never been about facts and evidence as such—we all have the same world, the same evidence, the same facts. It is the philosophical framework within which facts are interpreted which differs. And philosophical frameworks are based on axioms (presuppositions, or starting beliefs). The scientific conclusions of Darwinism are squarely based on anti-Biblical (naturalistic) axioms, while those of creation are based on Biblical axioms. We believe that axioms need to be openly ‘on the table’, and it should be realized that one can discuss them in a secular setting without teaching religious doctrine as such, but without hiding or running away from the implications. The evidence concerning origins can be discussed through a critical comparison of axiom-based models without fostering the secular myth of ‘neutrality,’ i.e., that evidence ‘speaks for itself’ in some mysterious way.”

Mr. Wieland’s entire article is well worth reading and presents some thought-provoking information about the Intelligent Design Movement and the implications if it should be included in the science standards for our public schools.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS