2008 Woodie Awards
Does Darwinism Do It?
Dylan Kurlansky
Issue date: 12/6/04 Section: Science & Technology
- Page 1 of 3 next >
A crime is being committed in America's high schools. The perpetrators are none other than teachers themselves. The crime is allowing a gaping hole to exist in the scientific education of future generations. If one would walk into a high school biology class today they would get an earful of neo-Darwinism. What they would not hear are the limitations of that theory or even a counter scientific theory. This is a travesty. America's youth is being taught about the origins of humanity in a one sided, biased manner. The simple resolution of this dilemma is to teach both side of the issue. Schools should continue to teach Darwinism, but, in addition they should teach the problems with the theory as well as a counter theory, Intelligent Design.
Darwinism is a theory of evolution. As opposed to earlier theories proposed by Lamarck and Malthus, famous early evolutionary scientists, Darwin's theory avoided completely the need to propose an "inner drive" of the animal which is evolving. Instead, Darwin's theory depended on three things. One, organisms varied; two, the variations could be inherited; and three, all organisms are subject to an intense struggle for survival which facilitated the natural selection of positive variations. What is being taught in today's high schools is neo-Darwinism which states that biological complexity can be explained through natural design acting on random mutations. The theory of Intelligent Design states that certain features of the living universe are to complex to be explained by anything but an intelligent cause.
The strongest argument against Intelligent Design is the resolution of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). In 2002 the AAAS drafted a resolution decrying Intelligent Design as unscientific. However, when asked to specify what pro Intelligent Design works he read, AAAS CEO, Alan Leshner, declined to specify any! Two other board members similarly declined to cite any sources; a fourth, however, did assert that she had looked Intelligent Design up on some unspecified internet sources. In addition a number of scientists supportive of Intelligent Design are AAAS members. Unfortunately this appears to be another example of academic segregation; the new theory is ostracized from its brethren without adequate research. Even opponents of Intelligent Design don't all agree with the AAAS's edict. In regard to teaching how to scrutinize theories like Darwinism, Patricia Princehouse, a professor at Case Western Reserve and outspoken Intelligent Design opponent, said "I don't have a problem with that. Critical analysis is exactly what scientists do." It would appear that not only does the AAAS not speak for all adversaries of Intelligent Design, they don't even speak for their own members.
Darwinism is a theory of evolution. As opposed to earlier theories proposed by Lamarck and Malthus, famous early evolutionary scientists, Darwin's theory avoided completely the need to propose an "inner drive" of the animal which is evolving. Instead, Darwin's theory depended on three things. One, organisms varied; two, the variations could be inherited; and three, all organisms are subject to an intense struggle for survival which facilitated the natural selection of positive variations. What is being taught in today's high schools is neo-Darwinism which states that biological complexity can be explained through natural design acting on random mutations. The theory of Intelligent Design states that certain features of the living universe are to complex to be explained by anything but an intelligent cause.
The strongest argument against Intelligent Design is the resolution of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). In 2002 the AAAS drafted a resolution decrying Intelligent Design as unscientific. However, when asked to specify what pro Intelligent Design works he read, AAAS CEO, Alan Leshner, declined to specify any! Two other board members similarly declined to cite any sources; a fourth, however, did assert that she had looked Intelligent Design up on some unspecified internet sources. In addition a number of scientists supportive of Intelligent Design are AAAS members. Unfortunately this appears to be another example of academic segregation; the new theory is ostracized from its brethren without adequate research. Even opponents of Intelligent Design don't all agree with the AAAS's edict. In regard to teaching how to scrutinize theories like Darwinism, Patricia Princehouse, a professor at Case Western Reserve and outspoken Intelligent Design opponent, said "I don't have a problem with that. Critical analysis is exactly what scientists do." It would appear that not only does the AAAS not speak for all adversaries of Intelligent Design, they don't even speak for their own members.