Creationism
and Intelligent Design
Creationism and Intelligent Design, either the kind
of ID that is just repackaged
Creationism or the ID that is more 'generic' are not science. It
has nothing
to do with right and wrong. Regardless of the
relative merits of Evolution, both Intelligent design and
Creationism require you to make at least one unsubstantiated leap of
faith, that there is a designer. This comes from the fact that
supporters of ID and Creationism cannot understand how life can evolve
without some intelligence guiding it. If they simply said that
Evolution was wrong and we still don't know how the diversity of life
came about, then they would have a valid point. An incorrect,
simplistic point, but a point nonetheless. Unfortunately they
make the
same assumption that evangalists of the faith do: that if they can't
prove what's going on, then it must be because of some intelligent
being. This places Creationism
and
all forms of Intelligent Design firmly in the real of religion and as
such should not be taught as science. It has nothing to do with
ID,
Creationism or Evolution being right or wrong. It has to do with
what
science is.
The arguments for Creationism and Intelligent design
usually come
about because of misconceptions about what Evolution actually is.
You
can find a really good description of the misconceptions about
Evolution and what it really means HERE
Evolution is real and has a staggering amount of
evidence supporting it. Whole medical industries are based on it
that wouldn't work if it weren't true. The Earth is several
billion years old and the universe is around 13
billion years old, but none of that has anything to do with whether
Creationism or Intelligent Design belongs in a science class.
Only science belongs in a science class.
Myth: Darwin was a racist and Evolution promotes
racism.
First of all, observations don't
promote an agenda. They are simply acknowledgments of what is
happening. Darwin's work (and
Evolution) were and are observations about how life evolves.
Darwin observed different traits in different living organisms and
postulated that these variations accumulate until eventually one life
form is drastically different than another and you end up wth two
distinct
species. Secondly, there is nothing racist about acknowledging
the fact that there are different traits manifest in different
races. Doctors know that sickle cell anemia shows up more often
in blacks. It isn't racist to acknowledge that.
The other, related claim is that
eugenics was created on the back of Evolution and therefor evolution is
bad. Eugenics is the idea that we can make a species better by
selective breeding. Leaving aside the fact that this is already
an established fact (dogs and cats have been so bred for centuries),
the only "bad" thing about eugenics comes from it being applied to
humans, such as the selective breeding program that the Nazi's engaged
in. If Darwin and evolution were held accountable for all the
idiots who invoke Evolution to excuse something that is either stupid
or
wrong, then we would have to hold Christianity accountable for all the
harm that
has been done to mankind in the name of God. This presents us
with quite a temptation, because the Catholics believe in original sin,
the point being that we CAN be held accountable for for the deeds of
those who came
before us. Only Jesus was capable of taking our sin away.
So if he actually did take our sin away, then those who believe in
evolution can be against the evil that men do in the name of science
and
Christianity can go on without having to apologize for all those
atrocities perpetrated in His name.
For more about Darwin's "politics", check out THIS.