Regarding Peter Milward’s Feb. 25 letter, “Two ‘ways’ of intelligent design“: It seems that Milward has confused the functions of the science classroom with those of a philosophy course. Milward, apparently supporting the teaching of another “way” of so-called intelligent design, states it “is the way not of science, which professedly stops short at phenomena, nor of religion, which is based on faith, but of philosophy, which argues from the known to the unknown.”
Although it may be a topic of philosophical debate, intelligent design is nowhere close to a true science. This was a fundamental point that U.S. Judge John E. Jones III stated (a year ago) in his ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover, declaring the teaching of intelligent design to be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. To quote the judge, intelligent design’s backers have advocated that “the controversy, but not ID itself, be taught in science class. . . . The goal of the (intelligent design movement) is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.”
If Milward wishes to see discussions on the philosophical differences between evolution and intelligent design, then such a conversation should remain within the confines of the philosophy class. I would no more like see “intelligent design” in a biology class than I would want an “intelligent falling theory” to supplant the General Theory of Relativity in a physics course.
In a time of both misinformation and too much information, quality journalism is more crucial than ever.
By subscribing, you can help us get the story right.