Intelligent design AGAIN.

A good post summarizing the problems with so-called "intelligent design" theory.  Neither new nor fangled, if you ask me.

If anti-religion evolutionists, and anti-evolution religionists, would just realize that the two ARE NOT MUTUALLY INCOMPATIBLE, a lot of this silliness could be avoided.

And by the way, specifically teaching in public schools that there is definitely no design behind the evolution of species (as in, e.g., the NEA "evolution platform" up to a few years ago)  is a breach of the church-state wall that is precisely equivalent to teaching that there definitely is design behind the evolution of species. 

Is there any harm in just steering clear of the whole idea of design, and letting students come to their own conclusions?

Comments

[DarwinCatholic]

Good point, though I think a lot of the problem also stems from lack of clarity and bad use of terminology on both sides.

What text books _should_ be getting accross is that, so far as we know, there is not a specific, directional plan which species are 'following' as they evolve. There is not a sense in which a fish 'wants' to be an amphibian. Nor, at least so far as we know, is a 'higher' animal necessarilly more successful from an evolutionary perspective than a 'lower' one.

However, none of this ties in to the teleological question of whether there is design or intent behind the world as a whole and the development of species in particular. Such an intent or active will could by its nature not be detected by science, and this is obviously something science textbooks should neither endorse nor deny.