Intelligent Design

It certainly doesn't feel like science. I would say that I am sympathetic to the view of many scientists that they shouldn't be forced to teach something in a classroom that doesn't pass scientific muster, or teach something other than science in their classrooms. If intelligent design is not considered to be science by a certain standard in the scientific community, than it ought not be taught in the science room.

However, a problem lies therein. Science does not present itself as an academic discipline meant to be mulled over and deliberated upon, etc, if you get my meaning. Scientists cast themselves as nature's truthseekers, steep in natural wisdom and versed in the nature of the planetary system. It isn't like a scientist would say "Well, evidence of an evolutionary chain that did not progress is this Archaeopterix (spelling), but remember, its only science." Science claims to be this end all of natural knowledge, which creates a frightful dilemma for those that can identify staggering gaps in evolutionary theory. I would hesitate to even classify it as a theory, for it seems to only meet the standards of a hypothesis. Now, it does seem to me that scientific methodology and formulae make very good sense, and I find much of the science related documents I have read or textbooks I have examined to be extremely convincing in non-evolutionary studies or what is called scientific law. I mean who doesn't think the periodic chart is accurate? My basic point is that science, while full of knowledge, has tried to dip too far into wisdom with its near fantical teachings on evolution. And science is simply not good at wisdom.

So, that leaves us with a basic problem. Science cannot provide an adequate answer for the origins of mankind, so it should, buy its own discipline, be moderate in its approach to instructing America's youth. I don't think ID is the answer, in fact, I don't have an answer, only a problem. Generally, I would loathe legislative interference in classroom study, but with the nature and power of many state departments of education, it can be frustrating to see behemoth beraucractic regulation by ideologically driven phonies and underqualified fat cats pushing ridiculous education programs and requirements at monstrous expense to state taxpayers.

So, in any case, it does not appear to me that Intelligent Design as I understand it passes scientific "muster". That really doesn't mean much to me, since I support the basic idea that the Earth is much younger than scientists believe and that evolution requires as much faith to swallow as creation. That is really neither here nor there except to say that sometimes "scientific evidence" doesn't seem like evidence at all, but something else entirely. Therefore, I suggest not watering down scientific exploration with the teaching of either Intelligent Design or Evolution in high school classrooms, for both seem to dull science's appeal to knowledge.