In reading Instapundit to try to see what I have missed the last five days I noticed a link to a discussion on Intelligent Design on Transterrestrial. Here is a representative quote:
...ID, and creationism in general should be able to be taught in the public schools. Just not in a science class--they need to be reserved for a class in comparative religions.
Thanks to the British North American Act we in Canada have two parallel education systems, the public (used to be Protestant, now is secular) system and the separate (Roman Catholic) school system (and I guess since these systems are voluntary we have avioded all problems with "seperate but equal"). I, of course, was educated in the Roman Catholic school system. Such a system is more than a public school with mandatory religion (although it is that) it is a system in which all subjects are taught from a Roman Catholic perspective. Which brings me to Intelligent Design.
The first thing to note is that creationism is not a necessary and sufficient (n&s) condition for Intelligent Design. We were taught the Theory of Evolution in Biology class we all of the implications thereof; meaning we were taught that this is the accepted theory and that the Creation Story was (is) allegory. At the same time we were taught about how complex life is and how evolution and Intelligent Design could be complementary (at the same time complexity is not n&s either, simplicity and elegance could be evidence of God as well). Same as in Physics class with the Big Bang Theory, i.e. what started the Big Bang?
The author of Transterrestrial of course says:
ID simply says, "I'm not smart enough to figure out how this structure could evolve, therefore there must have been a designer." That's not science--it's simply an invocation of a deus ex machina, whether its proponents are willing to admit it or not. And it doesn't belong in a science classroom, except as an example of what's not science.
My experience is that science and religion, fact and faith, need not be in conflict. As long as you are true to science in the science classroom why can you not be true to religion as well?
[Full disclosure: Although it would be presumptious to call myself a scientist, I have a science degree (Physics) and I have believed in the scientific method longer than I have had a strong faith. At no time in my journey back (or to, I am not really sure which it is) Catholicism have my education in science and my faith in God come into conflict. In fact, thanks to Dr. Mik Pintar's Quantum Mechanics course and the Tao of Physics that have at times reinforced each other. I guess you could call it a Ying Yang thing.
Update: David Warren has a different take on the whole debate:
As one of my scientific advisers explains (a certain Peter O'Donnell of Vancouver, B.C.), you have to put your faith in science case-by-case. In his view: "Gravitation looks okay, although the constant-G may have its flaws. Chemistry looks golden. Relativity seems a better framework than Newtonian dynamics, but one suspects a new overturning ahead. Evolution? Probably a pile of crap. It seems to spring from the same faulty thinking reservoir as Marxism and other failed ideological constructs of the early 20th century."
Hard to say if this is true or not, and that is the thing with science. Evolution is the best theory we have right now but until it is declared the Law of Evolution it is up for debate. Furthermore "Marxism and other failed ideological constructs" failed with proof (althought so many cling to them on faith...and we do a complete 180 from the arguments above) and we do not have such a Chretienian proof with Evolution, but again, it's the best we've got now.
