|It doesn't matter how close to or far away from science and religion ID is. What it is is a holistic approach, and that will not do in a government built on separation of church and state. In the premodern world, or even the emerging modern world, ID would not be anything unusual, because art, morals, and science were not separated. Modernism is not perfect, but one place where it shines is in the dignity it provided. This means a lot of things- ending slavery, ending the oppression of science by the church, ending aristocratic rule, and so on. To put a point on it, science was free to develop, the monological approach was allowed to develop. I believe that the separation of art, morals, and science represents a covenant in a true democratic society, a covenant that must not be broken. |
It does not mean that ID couldn't be presented as a concept in schools, but it would be hard to do it without having people breathing down your back. It could be presented in secondary schools, but it would have to be somewhere like the world religion classes. Maybe it should be presented, because if it is not, the curiosity can be used to strategic advantage. The kids already are getting a good wind of this. But it cannot be in a science class, because it is not pure science, it is science that, albeit through subtle implication, points to deism. That is a fact because it cannot point anywhere else.
It's kind of ironic that the fundamentalists are using ID. ID is not unlike many postmodern, non-fundamentalist postures. This stuff is in mainstream discussion (books like Paul Davies', etc.) It's just another thing where someone is trying to bring in The Big Paradigm. I'm not even sure it's that, it's more like a smuggling job, and a good one at that. On the surface, of the art/morals/science categories it only looks like science is there. But, if you look where it points, it points to deism. If you backtrack that, it goes deism, religion, morals. So, one of the three categories got blended in, and that's no good. If you are going to do synthesis and integration, that is in the personal realm. You have to have your right to do so protected. Oddly enough, that is exactly the sniveling defense that is being used to introduce ID into schools. Not on my dime, my misguided Christian brothers and sisters.
I'm not even going to the more obvious paper trail you get if you play a game of follow-the-proposed new curriculum, which without exception has traced back to certain cadres of religious people.
As an adult, I have no problem with people who base their individual spiritual consciousness on the idea of something in the ID or creationist categories, anymore than I do with atheists. I don't even have a problem with scientific materialists, other than when I point out that they can't answer the Big Question with their monological-based approach, either. It has not been answered by anyone. We have The Big Bang (sort of). What I do have a problem with is anyone who wants to horn in on a science class that promises or implies more than the scientific method allows.
As a former Objectivist, now Unitarian, I absolutely reject the concept of teaching ID in science classes, mainly because I deeply resent the use of this kind of tactic by the religious right. It is sleazy, it is lowbrow.
(Edited by Rich Engle on 12/23, 11:04am)