Musings in Search of a Muse

It has occurred to me that I might have collected more than my fair share of cartoons about Evolution and Intelligent Design (ID). But here's another ...

It is beginning to dawn on me that my penchant for cartoons in this vein is an indication of how seriously I take the current debate, i.e., not very. Another clue is that I have increasingly difficulty writing on the topic in any style other than bullet-point. Without seeing any sort of actual reason in the debate I am not sure that I can sort my thoughts with reason. So on with the bullets. Er, points. Bullet-points. The focus in part will be on the Dover Area School District which is currently in federal court having it's decision to teach ID challenged.

• The statement read to Dover students states in part, "Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered." A critic of ID, Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller, said the words are "tremendously damaging," falsely undermining the scientific status of evolution. "What that tells students is that science can't be relied upon and certainly is not the kind of profession you want to go into," he said. (citation).
• Yes, Darwin's theory is a theory. That didn't need repeating. And theories are tested by scientists. Perhaps Dr. Miller forgot Science 101 or even 8^th grade science. These tests are usually done when new evidence is discovered. You might even say that this process helps the investigated topic evolve. Now how does that statement damage the Theory of Evolution (hereafter abbreviated ToE)? I hope this is simply a case of poor articulation.
• In all that I've read about Intelligent Design, there has been no testing as there can be no testing. So is it a science at all? Darwin's idea, in it's purest form, makes remarks about a creator - though the title Origin of the Species can lead one to think it does - where as ID is all about a creator.
  
• Attention ID proponents: You aren't fooling anyone by saying the 'theory' could refer to an advanced extraterrestrial or extrasolar species, especially when you carry your Bibles into the courtroom.
• Is ID even a theory?
• Let's examine a couple definitions
• theory noun (pl. theories) ¹ a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. ² an idea accounting for or justifying something. ³ a set of principles on which an activity is based (source).
  
• hypothesis noun (pl. hypotheses /hipothiseez/) ¹ a supposition made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. ² Philosophy a proposition made as a basis for reasoning (source).
• No, I'd say that based on these definitions, that ID is simply a hypothesis, particularly considering the terms 'limited evidence' and 'philosophy' present.
• ToE is a hard science as it deals with quantifiable data within the larger scope of the hard science of biology.
  
• This is where my latest round of thoughts has been leading: I don't believe that Intelligent Design can be taught as a hard science, but rather should be relegated to the social sciences with other cultural concepts of origin.
• Consider: Can we teach the Mayan origin story as a hard science?

There were four gods in heaven and each of them sat on his chair, observing the world below. Then the yellow lord suggested that they make a man to enjoy the earth and offer praise to the gods. The other three agreed.

So the yellow god took a lump of yellow clay and made a man from it. But his creation was weak; it dissolved in water and could not stand upright.

Then the red god suggested that they make a man out of wood, and the others agreed. So the red god took a branch from a tree and carved it into a human shape. When they tested it in water, it floated; it stood upright without any problem whatsoever. However, when they tested it with fire, it burned.

The four lords decided to try again. This time the black god suggested making a man out of gold. The gold man was beautiful and shone like the sun. He survived the tests of fire and water, looking even more handsome after these tests. However, the gold man was cold to the touch; he was unable to speak, feel, move, or worship the gods. But they left him on earth anyway.

The fourth god, the colorless lord, decided to make humans out of his own flesh. He cut the fingers off his left hand and they jumped and fell to earth. The four gods could hardly see what the men of flesh looked like as they were so far away. From the seat of the four lords, they looked like busy little ants.

But the men of flesh worshipped the gods and made offerings to them. They filled the hearts of the four lords with joy. One day the men of flesh found the man of gold. When they touched him, he was as cold as a stone. When they spoke to him, he was silent. But the kindness of the men of flesh warmed the heart of the man of gold and he came to life, offering praise to the gods for the kindness of the men of flesh.

The word of praise from the previously silent creature woke the four gods from their sleep and they looked down on earth in delight. They called the man of gold "rich" and the men of flesh "poor," ordaining that the rich should look after the poor. The rich man will be judged at his death on the basis of how he cared for the poor. From that day onward, no rich man can enter heaven unless he is brought there by a poor man (citation).

• No, there is no quantifiable data.
• Well, if it was hard science, then why has it been kept out of the biology classroom and left to be glossed over in Social Studies or History texts?
• When I was student teaching 7^th grade Social Studies I taught many origin stories but wasn't allowed to show more than a few minutes of The Ten Commandments (1956) on video when teaching Middle Eastern history because of the potential religious uproar.
• What makes Christianity different from other religions in the eyes of agnostics and atheists? Would raise the same ruckus if Mayan origin 'theories' were proposed in Biology class?
• How about other origin stories? Answer this question yourself by Googling the term Origin Myths. Yes, anthropologists call all origin stories myths. Just don't say that in front of the wrong Christian because though the term is correct in the strictest sense, it carries certain preconceptions. Wouldn't want to offend anyone.
  
• My thoughts circle back around to a singular 'origin,' so to speak.
• It is entirely reasonable to suppose that Our Lord (or yours, depending on the mythology you follow) is capable of using ToE as part of His Creation, thus making it an implement in the Intelligent Designer's tool box.
• At the risk of violating the 5^th Commandment, I like to think that God, with whom I have a personal relationship as any devoted Christian does, would likely do this.

In my vision, there's a theory and a hypothesis co-existing peacefully. And it is a frequent prayer of mine that both sides can work beyond the rhetoric and the personal blindness that each is demonstrating to find a position that would best let all peoples develop and grow.

For your consideration:

• Dr. Miller's own home page
• Dr. Miller's book - Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution
• Darwin's book - The Origin of the Species (I dare you to read it - online!)
• NOVA Online
• Discovery Institute
• Ken Miller's Evolution Page
• TechNews World
• Slate - "Darwin's Sanitized Idea"