Thursday, November 10, 2011

Marking Period 2: Monday #4

The final view comes from this article.

In an article by emeritus professor of biology Craig E. Nelson, he explains why Intelligent Design (or ID) should not be taught in schools.  First, he identifies four major obstacles:  it is "almost universally" recognized to not be science; to require it would be unconstitutional; legal entanglements will surely ensue if it is required; and to not emphasis the truth of Evolutionism would prove to be a disadvantage to future biologists.  He continues with another more personal problem:  how religion fits in.  As an example, Nelson cites Michael Behe, a prominent biologist in support of ID; the biologist claims cells are too complex to have been formed by Evolution, but refuses to give a name to the intelligent force that supposedly did create them.  In short, Nelson's point here is that the discussion of ID in a classroom environment has the potential to question the religious views of all students.

The critique of Behe's views continues with the recognition of an assumption Intelligent Design makes:  that some aspects of organisms that appear not to have undergone Evolution will never be proved to have been through it.  Nelson lists examples of proven "missing links" between organisms which once had no evolutionary explanation for their traits and suggests that if ID were taught, it too would have to address the ways in which complex structures form (as evolutionary theory already has.)  The article concludes with the fact that if both ID and Evolution were taught, so too would critiques of both need to be heard; a critique of ID would most certainly seem an indirect attack on religion.  Nelson says simply that he is in agreement with the teachers who refuse to bring their students' religious beliefs into the classroom.

(As for the post that used to be here... I was more than a little frustrated with myself for my lack of effort in your class - that was directed entirely at me, not you.  I agree that it was inappropriate, and nothing of the sort will ever again be posted while I work on the Monday Matters project. I am very sorry.)

1 comment:

  1. Hannah:
    Two things here:
    a. I'm not quite sure I understand the more colloquial, abrupt language of your post. Is this directed to me? If so, this is inconsistent with what you present in class. Further, it is in appropriate for this assignment.

    b. Where is your own view on the creationism debate?

    Mr. Heller

    +15/20

    ReplyDelete