|
 The
President says he thinks it's OK for more than one opinion to be heard,
even taught, in schools, -- he had been asked about Intelligent Design --
and you'd think he'd announced that we had just invaded
Iran, or maybe
France, the way the
media reacted. Why the media turned that into such
news, is the real news.
The media must be mighty touchy about
Intelligent Design. Why so edgy?
As near as I can figure it, there are two pretty fossilized bones sticking
in the media craw: 1) that ID isn't science. 2)
religious people are pushing it, which, a) a priori
proves it isn't science, and b) worse, is sinful, to use a religious term
the media is suddenly envious of. Wrong, anyway.
Maybe unconstitutional.
Time Magazine's cover story
(August 15, 2005 issue) asks the question, "Does God have a place in
science class?" Isn't that misstating the question?
As near as I know none of the proposed measures even mentions Him.
Ironically, Intelligent Design people perceive something more than
coincidence out there, and, being scientific, go no farther, while it's
Evolutionists who are so quick to see – God!
At this point Time bangs the table, slams the cards
down, and storms out of the saloon, insisting any cosmic designer is just
God in disguise. Thus the universe spins.
The real question before the house is, Does
Intelligent Design have any place in science class.
And speaking of science, is it scientific to slant questions?
As journalism, routine; but is it scientific?
If an intelligence (Intelligence) did design
it all, what's the question anyway? Even if cosmic
Intelligence is just a hypothesis, the answer is still yes, teach it, or
at least allow mention of it – in science class one good hypothesis is as
good as the next, or should be.
Gays by law can waltz out of the closet and
into diplomatically immune, tenured academia. Not
Intelligent Design. In the closet it stays, better
yet, the trash.
I'm nonplused by all this shouting that
Intelligent Design isn't scientific. If
Darwin looked at fossils and
drew a conclusion, and he was scientific, why isn't looking at
DNA and drawing a conclusion
also scientific? How could recognizing that something
is so complex and well engineered it couldn't simply have fallen together,
not be scientific? It's called induction,
the best kind of science. And insisting that I.D. is
not scientific doesn't make Evo scientific, does it?
And don't exhume Galileo as an
accuser of Intelligent Design. It would backfire. Galileo was accused by
the doctrinaire establishment, which is accusing Intelligent Design.
Galileo and Intelligent Design are inspired by data, not the Bible. If
religion is revelation, Intelligent Design isn't. If Intelligent Design
is just an excuse for religion, then Evo is just an excuse for atheism.
It's got to work both ways equally – the scientific method, logical
thinking, simple ethical fairness all say so.
Evo not only flaunts itself as the only
possible legitimate offspring of science but also hides behind it's
skirts, chirping, "Ok, so Evo has gaps; any scientific theory does."
I say
DNA evidence disproves Evo as
the only legitimate offspring of science.
So who decides what's scientific and what
isn't? Suddenly it's media columnists, political
columnists deployed for special duty, guest columnists from think tanks.
When columnists see themselves as philosophers and on philosophical
grounds push Evo, or dismiss design, that's their privilege.
If you don't think so, philosophize it out with the columnists.
Or, for that matter, with philosopher professors, like Singer and
Rorty, who like to double as columnists. But when
these people see themselves as scientists, not just philosophers, and cite
scientific facts and what "studies have shown," what do they
know either? And when did they know it?
As shallow and flailing, as unscientific, as
the media talking points are, the vocabulary employed is, to use a media
favorite, disingenuous. "Coy," "stupid," "repackaged,"
"outmoded." "Rural" (the part of
Kansas that sees something in
ID), "red-state," "red-necked." "Disguised,"
"insulting," "fraudulent," "spurious," "propaganda."
"Doctrine," "dogma," "prejudiced," "bigoted," "biased." And
"Disingenuous." Yadda yadda.
Evolve a new style book, people.
With that kind of headline and column
popping up all over town, in the likes of The New Yorker, New
York Times, even Wall Street Journal, can the bumper
stickers be far behind? INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT
SCIENCE! Bumper-sticker logic, all right.
If it has come to that, how about this one? I.D. IS THE SURVIVAL OF
THE FITTEST OVER THE SNIDEST.
So much for science. Now
talking more like gossip columnists, they report breathlessly that
Intelligent Design and religion is an item, and somehow scandalous.
Well, they are good friends, they aren't denying it, but, no, not
legally married, and not planning to be, rumors to the contrary.
Speaking of unseemly unions, even polygamy,
all proudly certified, how about Evo and Marxism? Evo
and Postmodernism? Evo and Atheism?
If Evo validates atheism, atheism would naturally be cozy with Evo.
What else is new? If Intelligent Design is not
inconsistent with the Biblical concept, why shouldn't religion smile at
ID? If liberal politics parties with
Hollywood celebrities, let
religion and ID have their corn roasts.
Maybe we've stumbled onto the real answer to
the otherwise baffling question of why the media is so ticked off.
Evo and its consorts have enjoyed such blissful cohabitation for so
long, but now another shows up in the neighborhood, intelligent, well
designed, downright attractive. No wonder hackles and
dukes are up.
*
Dr. Wesley Kime, distinguished physician, retired in Ohio, paints with
oils, creates line drawings, and writes literary prose for pleasure. His
skilled portraiture, along with a take-off on Michelangelo's depiction of
the creation of man, were featured in an earlier, 2001 edition of Creation
Digest.
|
