From an open letter to the Kansas School board.
I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design to be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.
Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.
You can read the full letter here – with nice pictures an all. I for one dig that Coffee mug with the midget (or as they call him/her, “midgit”) hahahaha.
I for one have nothing against teaching Intelligent Design along with other theories. I mean it is a fair assumption. If we can base Religion on faith and teach that, why not this theory right? And it’s not like it’s religion per se (though it can lead to it, as my previous post just proved).
But that’s not the issue here, the issue is simply to give an alternate take on Evolution. While I believe in the theory of evolution, that doesn’t mean I will absolutely deny the possibility that there’s a .000000001% chance of it being wrong. We’ve had a number of Scientific discoveries over the past centuries that shook the very foundations of our perception of “life” – what makes us so sure that it can’t happen to this particular field?
So like Philosophy, presenting it is no problem with me. The intention of Philosophy has always been to give you enough food for thought to think for yourself, but never asserted any of the presented views as absolute truths. Philosophy goes along the lines of, “Some people think of this in this way, or that way, and you can also think of it in this way, or that way.” – but no matter how many propositions on “perspective” you are given, never in my life have I interpreted Philosophy as saying you should think one way or the other.
So in that sense, yes, the presentation of the Theory of Intelligent Design is indeed a reasonable addition to the curriculum.
What worries me though is how gullible people can be, and can attribute this to religion easily.
The theory was never meant to be taken in a theological context. Because it deals solely with how we got to where we are today as a people. The problem is it can be connected theologically because it goes right to the beginning of things… where basically (according to the Philosophy of Religion) is why we [need to] believe in a supreme being in the first place.
However, as I said the intention of the theory doesn’t care exactly what the origins are.
Intelligent Design (or ID) is the controversial assertion that certain parts of existence are best explained by positing an intelligent designer. The majority of ID advocates state that their focus is on detecting evidence of design in nature, without regard to who or what the designer might be.
So there you have it, it could be God, or it could be the Aliens… who knows our “god” might be an alien after all: be it a spaghetti monster or an evil intergalactic ruler named Xenu (evil laughter)! But as I said, those factors are already outside the scope of the theory. Yet its worth reiterating how the misinformed can interpret the theory into ludicrous assumptions (like the statement above)
I must admit, this post was prompted by that whole Scientology thing. Because even if deep down in our gut, we know how ridiculous the story is, we in fact cannot disprove it, nor can we prove the other religions for that matter. And while I said that the theory shouldn’t be connected theologically, I will go against my better judgement for the sake of argument (and fun).
What I like about Intelligent Design is that it doesn’t assume the details. It simply says there is a higher-order being responsible for what is… period. That can be grounds to believe or not to believe in Theology. The reason I don’t fully believe in structured religion is precisely because they claim these “details” – which would be fine… if they had actual non-contestable proof.
While I do believe in God (or a higher being), I’m not entirely ready to swallow the significance of the other “traditions” of any particular religion – who knows if they were divinely inspired, or the rantings of madmen, or a man-made conspiracy to control society, or implanted by Xenu, the Evil Intergalactic Ruler muwahahahaha (I swear, I can never get tired of that phrase)
Anyways, to wind down, teaching ID in schools, in my opinion would depend. Where are you teaching it? Is the society “reasonable” enough to understand it… that it merely is food for thought (like Philosophy)? If so, then why not. But certainly we cannot afford to have other ridiculous belief-systems springing about because of it. The world is crazy as it is, the last thing we need is some misinformed lunatic (or intelligent/creative economic swindler) to have a justification to purport some utterly bogus story to cash in on.