Well, we knew the arguments weren’t over in Florida, but when I read “pro-ID” arguments such as this one it makes me cringe. The columnist who wrote it – bless her – has her heart in the right place I think, but she makes some pretty bad arguments for ID. The first thing she does is conflate ID with creationism when she says:
Why is it OK to teach evolution in public schools, and not intelligent design?
I just don’t get it. Both are theories that would take a person older than time to confirm. Both raise more questions than answers. And both, if we really want to be honest, require some level of faith. For creationists, it’s faith in the existence of a higher being. For evolutionists, it’s faith in assumptions that would take millions of years to disprove.
ID is not creationism, however. I am not a creationist and I don’t base my position on faith. Dawkinsists do, in that they dogmatically accept evolution by fiat, so I empathize with her point, but ID is not based on faith, but on science and scientific findings.
And, here’s another bad argument:
Proponents of evolution have to realize that Not everyone is convinced the theory is true. And those who don’t are also taxpayers who should have a say in the curriculum. If evolution is allowed in the classroom, intelligent design should be too. It’s only fair, since Gallup polls have found that the majority of Americans believe life began with a supreme being anyway.
I’d like for all ID proponents to do away with this argument. Fairness is not necessary in the science classroom, but science is. ID should be included in the curriculum because it is science, and better science than Darwinism in my opinion.
Again, I don’t want to pile on to someone who has their heart in the right place. She obviously cares about the education that the children of Florida receive and she’s obviously got a sense of social justice and fairness. I would just recommend that other ID proponents not use the same arguments. Let’s win the argument through science, which we can do and are doing!