That is the premiss of an editorial on The Scientist Magazine's online edition.
Intelligent Design and Informed Debate By Richard Gallagher, Editor argues that it is good to have a public debate about scientific theories. Not only is this a great opportunity to inform the uninformed, but it can also jump-start new lines of thinking within the scientific community.
In his words:
What I am is someone who sees an outstanding opportunity to exchange views with the naysayers, and a rare public examination of a set of ideas that are pretty much taken as Gospel - sorry for the blurring of metaphors, but it drives home my point - by us in the scientific community. Played the right way, everyone - yes, including scientists - should come out enriched by the interaction.
Mr. Gallagher even argues that we should not panic at the thought of teachers being forced to teach I.D., but should embrace it as a way of showing how much stronger evolutionary theory is than any alternative.
More across the bump
Here are a few of the more pertinent portions of the editorial:
Opponents have two possible responses. The dominant one is something close to panic: fear that a generation will be brainwashed into accepting intelligent design and that science itself is under threat throughout the country. That response results in avoiding the topic altogether and refusing to debate. In fact, some scientists regret using words such as "design" in published studies, for fear it will be used by intelligent-design advocates.
I for one, don't think it is unreasonable to fear pseudo-science being forced into the science curriculum.
The other response is to accept the challenge and rise to it, even to relish it. That's the approach I would urge, and here's why:
- It's rare to have a full-blooded public debate about the school curriculum. And one about the science curriculum is as rare as rocking-horse droppings. We should play it for all it's worth, bringing a clearer sense of evolution to a wide cross-section of the population.
- While some of the commentary, with headlines such as "Religious right fights science for the heart of America," suggests that the heart of America is some kind of science utopia, this could hardly be further from the truth. With the exception of isolated pockets of excellence, the heart of America could do well with engaging a lot more with science, and this is a chance to make headway. Debates can be won as well as lost!
- At the level of the students who are, after all, the principles in all this, the study of different explanations for the diversity of life on Earth will make science class more compelling. Clyde Herreid talks on page 10, in this issue's Opinion, about the need for science teaching to connect to the first-hand experiences of students. The evolution-intelligent design debate will fire the interest of bright kids who will see through the paper-thin arguments being set out to discredit evolution.
I agree that evolution should win this debate every time. I don't have faith that teachers will teach it in this way, though. Sure, bright kids will be able to see through the BS of intelligent design, but what about the rest of the students? What about those classes taught by biased teachers. This debate is one for the scientific community and not the high school science classroom.
Gallagher admits to a potential problem as well:
There is one caveat, and it's a big one: The topics must be taught on a level playing field. Full information on evolution and on intelligent design must be supplied, and there must be no further pressure on curricula or teachers. Given this, I'm in little doubt that the open-minded students of the heart of America will see the strength of evolution as a theory.
In addition, scientists should go out of their way to support their local high-school science teachers to present the case for evolution. Scientists must propose their case to as wide an audience as possible. This includes commercial television news, a medium of which scientists have been skeptical. Let's get out there and argue!
This is wishful thinking. Gallagher says, "Sure let them present I.D. as a stupid, unscientific piece of crap. It will only strengthen the teaching of evolution." But they don't want I.D. taught as an example of a bad theory, and they don't want evolution taught fairly, either. They want to blur things to the point that students can't tell what a good theory is and what a bad one is.
All due respect to Mr. Gallagher, but I think it is better to stay away from this course. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile, topple the statues in the quad, and depose the Principal. I.D. does not belong in a science classroom, even if it is used as a foil. Maybe at the college level, but not in a high school general science class.
