I´m an atheist and a scientist. And an European. Maybe that´s why I don´t understand all the fuss about the "intelligent design" idea. It seems some people in America want to get "intelligent design" into school books. Others are vehemently against it. It is of course, the question what students should learn and who has a right to determ that. But lets be clear about one thing: evolutionary biology is certainly no bad science. The Theory of Evolution as it is currently seen by the majority of scientists in the world is one of the best researched fields of science. It is a more coherent theory than the Theory of Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. And "intelligent design" is no part of it. Lets not get into a discussion about that. If you doubt it, study biology please.
But with a little understanding one can see that it is also sometimes a bit hard to swallow for believers. Science was not invented to please religious feelings. It is no part of the scientific cosmology that some god may have created the universe. Gods generally make bad scientific theories. That much should actually be obvious to anyone. Whether god exists or not, no one can claim without sounding preposterous to know the precise nature of any god. But exactly this would be necessary to make it scientifically useful. The claim "God made the flowers grow" isn´t scientific worthwhile unless you can tell how he did it, why he did it and what would have been the consequence if some variable had been different. Who would want that?
Now this explains why religious appeals have no place in science and when students, when they learn science should learn the scientific consensus that is naturally - because of said reasons - free of any hypothesis about god.
But science was also not invented to turn people into atheists. When someone believes in god, the scientific consensus is a bit unsatisfying. The scientific theory of evolution does not say god did anything with living creatures, the laws of thermodynamics do not even allow him to interfere with the world in any way. So, naturally the reasonable believer - the one who doesn´t reject these theories right away - simply chooses to believe that god was responsible for the Big Bang, influences evolution from time to time and bends the laws of thermodynamics whenever he sees fit. These claims are scientifically pointless but they satisfy religious feelings and - that´s the point I like - they aren´t absurd. You can´t prove that god did not influence chances of mutation a few times or that small extra bits of energy didn´t appear contrary to physical laws. These things are loopholes, of course. But loopholes that should make it possible for believers and unbelievers not to yell at each other.
That´s why intelligent design is something else than creationism. That creationism that claims evolution is a lie and the world is only 6000 years old is intellectually so far off that it cannot coexist with science without problems. But intelligent design can, because it is a loophole. And even though I think it should be made clear to students what the scientific consensus is, I also don´t see a reason these loopholes should be kept out of school entirely. School books don´t need to say "and there´s absolute no option that god plays a role in this". School books over biology should be about biology and not theology, but god is - even an atheist must admit as much - part of everyday life and if a teachers mentions a religious loophole that doesn´t endanger the students´ chance to establish a view of their own. In the contrary, it gives the believers among the students the chance to combine science and faith, without rejecting any of the two.
It seems in America, the classroom has become a battlefield and both sides think if they give up an inch than students will be inevitably pulled to the other side. Let scientists decide what to write in science books and common sense what to talk about: anything that can broaden their view.
Maybe instead, science books should wear a sticker saying: "It´s only a damn science book!"
After all, about half of what it contains will be wrong anyway...
Bookmarks