Cobb County & Intelligent Design
Posted: 2003-03-10 10:15pm
OK, for my midterm take-home exam my Science & Pseudoscience teacher told us to write a mock letter to the Cobb County Board of Education on why intelligent design should not or should be taught in schools. Naturally, I took the opposing position, and wrote this up. It's not the most stellar thing I've ever written and I may have borrowed a little too liberally from the various arguments found on this site, but I'd appreciate any insight on how to improve it.
Dear Mr. Redden:
I am certain that you, above all others, are familiar with the recent decision by the Board of Education to include the teaching of "alternative theories" concerning the origin and development of life on Earth such as Intelligent Design. I am certain that there are many people on the Board who are sincere in their belief that Intelligent Design is a valid alternative to evolutionary theory. That being said, this is not good. Let me be frank. I grew up in Cobb County. I have been well-educated by Cobb County schools. I like Cobb County. I know one of the Board of Education members. And I am very much tired of the widespread belief throughout much of America that holds many of the people of Cobb County and other places like it in the South to be nothing but a bunch of inbred, fundamentalist, slobbering retards. Very tired of it. And by choosing to accept Intelligent Design Theory, which is really just creationism in a cheap tuxedo, as an acceptable alternative to evolutionary theory, the Board has only perpetuated this belief.
Thomas Jefferson, a strong believer in the importance of public schooling, once stated: "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." And this explains why the Intelligent Design lobby has so vigorously used the political forum as a means by which to perpetuate their ideas; the scientific community has no interest in them, and they cannot stand against true scientific theory. Evolution is a factually proven theory; it can be observed, and the fossil record corroborates it. It stands by itself; it does not require the government's endorsement to make it true. Intelligent Design cannot be observed. The concept of Intelligent Design rests upon the notion of irreducible complexity; that is, the idea that some biological structures and systems are too complex to have evolved naturally, so they must have been created by an "intelligent designer." So, basically, it says: "I'm not capable of explaining this, so God?oops, I mean the 'intelligent designer' must have created it!" This is a leap in logic and a clear violation of Occam?s Razor; it creates an unnecessary entity to explain what likely can be explained naturally based on natural phenomena. Furthermore, many scientists have proven that such systems can reduced in complexity, but this is not really relevant. In any case, we must not resort automatically to divine intervention (which is what "intelligent design" really is) to explain things; we must first attempt to do so with sound scientific, naturalistic reasoning. It would also been reasonable to note that complexity, in biological systems and elsewhere, is not necessarily a sign of intelligence; the structure of quartz crystals is often extremely complex, for example. Does that mean that there is some "intelligent designer" up there churning out beautifully intricate crystals and letting them fall to Earth? No. I wonder how the Board of Education would react, actually, if I demanded that my theory of ?alternative geology? be given equal time with traditional geology in public schools. If anything, complexity is a sign of a lack of intelligence. Go speak with any computer programmer; what do you think he is going to strive for, an incredibly complex product that no untrained individual is able to comprehend, or a simplified system that can be used by anyone? Simplicity is what a real intelligent designer ought to strive for.
With that said, it is also important that we concentrate on legal and moral issues why intelligent design cannot be taught in public schools. I will be frank again; Intelligent Design is creationism. It tries to pretend that it isn't by replacing God with an "intelligent designer" in order to trick people with an aversion to creationism into believing that it is a valid theory. Ultimately intelligent design attributes the genesis of complex biological systems and structures to a supernatural being, which is exactly what Creationism is. It is obvious but not stated that this divine being is God. Therefore, despite the claims of the Intelligent Design advocates, Intelligent Design is just a clever trick by which creationism can be presented in an apparently non-religious context. That does not change the fact that it is indeed religious, however, since it deals with a supernatural being rather than the natural. Both the Georgia State Constitution and the United States Constitution mandate that no law respecting the establishment of any religion may be passed, and an endorsement of intelligent design by the Cobb County Board of Education would amount to just that. This isn't just about science, this is about America. It is no coincidence that the majority of advocates of Intelligent Design are Christians. This is just another example of people trying to force their beliefs on others, and is something that inherently leads to many conclusions about southern religious bigotry. Hence the stereotype described above.
I hope I have at least partially convinced you of the folly of allowing this despicable theory to be taught to our children in public schools. I implore you and the Board to reconsider this action. Perhaps, working together, we can work to knock down stereotypes about the South, not perpetuate them.
Dear Mr. Redden:
I am certain that you, above all others, are familiar with the recent decision by the Board of Education to include the teaching of "alternative theories" concerning the origin and development of life on Earth such as Intelligent Design. I am certain that there are many people on the Board who are sincere in their belief that Intelligent Design is a valid alternative to evolutionary theory. That being said, this is not good. Let me be frank. I grew up in Cobb County. I have been well-educated by Cobb County schools. I like Cobb County. I know one of the Board of Education members. And I am very much tired of the widespread belief throughout much of America that holds many of the people of Cobb County and other places like it in the South to be nothing but a bunch of inbred, fundamentalist, slobbering retards. Very tired of it. And by choosing to accept Intelligent Design Theory, which is really just creationism in a cheap tuxedo, as an acceptable alternative to evolutionary theory, the Board has only perpetuated this belief.
Thomas Jefferson, a strong believer in the importance of public schooling, once stated: "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." And this explains why the Intelligent Design lobby has so vigorously used the political forum as a means by which to perpetuate their ideas; the scientific community has no interest in them, and they cannot stand against true scientific theory. Evolution is a factually proven theory; it can be observed, and the fossil record corroborates it. It stands by itself; it does not require the government's endorsement to make it true. Intelligent Design cannot be observed. The concept of Intelligent Design rests upon the notion of irreducible complexity; that is, the idea that some biological structures and systems are too complex to have evolved naturally, so they must have been created by an "intelligent designer." So, basically, it says: "I'm not capable of explaining this, so God?oops, I mean the 'intelligent designer' must have created it!" This is a leap in logic and a clear violation of Occam?s Razor; it creates an unnecessary entity to explain what likely can be explained naturally based on natural phenomena. Furthermore, many scientists have proven that such systems can reduced in complexity, but this is not really relevant. In any case, we must not resort automatically to divine intervention (which is what "intelligent design" really is) to explain things; we must first attempt to do so with sound scientific, naturalistic reasoning. It would also been reasonable to note that complexity, in biological systems and elsewhere, is not necessarily a sign of intelligence; the structure of quartz crystals is often extremely complex, for example. Does that mean that there is some "intelligent designer" up there churning out beautifully intricate crystals and letting them fall to Earth? No. I wonder how the Board of Education would react, actually, if I demanded that my theory of ?alternative geology? be given equal time with traditional geology in public schools. If anything, complexity is a sign of a lack of intelligence. Go speak with any computer programmer; what do you think he is going to strive for, an incredibly complex product that no untrained individual is able to comprehend, or a simplified system that can be used by anyone? Simplicity is what a real intelligent designer ought to strive for.
With that said, it is also important that we concentrate on legal and moral issues why intelligent design cannot be taught in public schools. I will be frank again; Intelligent Design is creationism. It tries to pretend that it isn't by replacing God with an "intelligent designer" in order to trick people with an aversion to creationism into believing that it is a valid theory. Ultimately intelligent design attributes the genesis of complex biological systems and structures to a supernatural being, which is exactly what Creationism is. It is obvious but not stated that this divine being is God. Therefore, despite the claims of the Intelligent Design advocates, Intelligent Design is just a clever trick by which creationism can be presented in an apparently non-religious context. That does not change the fact that it is indeed religious, however, since it deals with a supernatural being rather than the natural. Both the Georgia State Constitution and the United States Constitution mandate that no law respecting the establishment of any religion may be passed, and an endorsement of intelligent design by the Cobb County Board of Education would amount to just that. This isn't just about science, this is about America. It is no coincidence that the majority of advocates of Intelligent Design are Christians. This is just another example of people trying to force their beliefs on others, and is something that inherently leads to many conclusions about southern religious bigotry. Hence the stereotype described above.
I hope I have at least partially convinced you of the folly of allowing this despicable theory to be taught to our children in public schools. I implore you and the Board to reconsider this action. Perhaps, working together, we can work to knock down stereotypes about the South, not perpetuate them.