Who will make the decisions?

After work, with the partner away at class, it was time to read the news. My trusty Yahoo ™ News brought me two seemingly unrelated stories, but together they made me think (and have a little sense of fear for the future). The titles of the stories were Study: Most College Students Lack Skills (Read) and Vatican Says “Intelligent Design” Is Not Science (Read). How do they relate and what implications do I draw from them you may ask? Ah, welcome to my world.

Let's begin with something easy. Simply put, proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) say that what they are proposing is a valid scientific theory. Opponents ("Darwinists" to use ID terminology) say that ID is simply creation science in a different tutu and is religion, not science. Now do you see how the articles tie together? Still fuzzy, huh? Here's another hint: Quick, define science. Define religion. Sounds simple doesn't it? Be careful. To those of you who may have read Plato, you know that simple questions are often the hardest to answer. That is the case here. I can't give you full classes in the philosophy of science and the philosophy of religion, but I will give you a sample of some of the complexity involved in this debate.

Let's start with science. Science comes from the Latin word for "knowledge". This doesn't help much because now we would have to define knowledge, figure out what separates knowledge from belief (the issue of warrant), etc. For an online definition you can check out Merriam-Webster (Science). From this definition we get phrases like "something that may be studied or learned" and "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method", but neither of these discredit ID as "science" (and if you got any portion of the dictionary definition in your attempt, congratulations, you probably out performed the majority of college students). The big debate occurs because there is a whole body of study about what science is (and even that body is not conclusive). Most people who study the philosophy of science will generally agree that whatever science is, it generates theories that will have the following characteristics:

• It is guided by natural law (it is based upon the way nature works).
• It has to have expanatory powers (should tell you how nature works and has some predictive power).
• It can be tested (subject to basic empiricism).
• It's conclusions are open to possible future revision (its conclusions are tentative).
• It is falsifiable (that is, has the potential in being proven wrong, thanks Prof. Popper).

*Whew* This means that whatever the standard formal statement of ID theory is, it must meet at least these five criteria to be called science. The question is, does it? Proponents say yes (or at least they say it meets the criteria at least as well as Darwinism does), while opponents say it doesn't (though I have yet to read a committed evolutionist's comparison of how well evolutionary theory as commonly taught stands up to such a definition of "science").

Now let's take the other side. Evolutionists say that ID is simply an attempt to get religion into the public schools by fundamentalists (and honestly, I have seen more fallacies commited by proponents of evolution: ad hominem attacks, appeal to ridicule, genetic fallacy, slippery slope, and guilt by association, than I care to think about) while ID advocates say that evolution itself acts more like a religion than ID. So, who is right? Well, we need a definiton of religion. Again, Merriam-Webster comes to the rescue as a start (Religion) and we see phrases such as "service and worship of a God or the supernatural" and "a commitment or devotion to religious faith". Now neither of these sound like ID or evolution so are both sides wrong? Again, alot depends on the definitions of things like "God" and "faith". But since there are philosophers who specialize in the study of religion, how would they define religion? *Ahem* If you thought "science" was complicated, try religion. Most definitions contain at least one deficiency and requires you to know alot about the different belief systems often classified as a religion. Philosopher Ninian Smart in The World's Religions brings no less than seven dimensions in trying to create an operational definition of religion (including a ritualistic dimension, an experiential dimension, a narrative or mythic dimension, a doctrinal or philosophic dimension, etc). Then, just as he has convinced you that it looks pretty good, Professor Smart shows how some secular worldviews can STILL meet the criteria. So it looks like on this side of the argument it is possible that both ID and evolution may meet Professor Smart's description of religion!

Okay, figured out how the articles tie together? Then let me tell you. What we have seen is that to make decisions (from personal to those of national importance) it takes knowledge and skill. If you don't know something you at least need the skills necessary to find out the details. You need to know how to ask questions and then how to set about answering those questions. Is ID (or, for the other side, evolution) science or religion? Is abortion the taking of a human life? Is the death penalty "wrong" (and for those who are Christian does the Bible say "Thou shalt not kill" or "Thou shalt not murder")? The article about the skills of college students found them, our "best and brightest", having difficulty with "analyzing news stories and other prose, understanding documents and having math skills needed for checkbooks or restaurant tips". At least they appeared to be okay at "intermediate tasks"... like finding a location on a map (is it just me, or has our bar been lowered a bit since I was an undergraduate in the early '80s?). Our next generation of leaders, our judges, our thinkers, our defenders of freedom... *sigh* Let's hope things change.