0309 Intelligent Design
Sometimes the simplest questions generate the most profound answers. In my case, the question came from a diminutive blue-eyed blond who was fresh out of kindergarten. Like many in her age bracket, she is an avid animal lover. Her career plans were to be an “animal-saver” when she got out of school. In a conversation with me, she asked one of those simply profound questions I just mentioned. “Papa, what is the difference between animals and us?” Before it was all over, my little future “practitioner of saving” made me promise to “write in the paper for everyone.” Kiona, this one is for you.
The dispute over teaching Intelligent Design along side evolution in public school curriculums can be debated in a multitude of ways but all the arguments come down to three general classifications; those being issues of the heart, science and society (including education and politics).
Societal anxiety over intelligent design is probably the most multi-faceted of the three. It is not too difficult to understand why. It would appear that there is an amazing level of public misinformation, insecurity and, in some camps, willful blindness concerning intelligent design theory – even among sincere scientists, media experts and educators who will eventually be indoctrinating the young minds of those who hold our future. The outrageous perversion of the First Amendment (which actually GUARANTEES the practice of UNFETTERED PUBLIC RELIGION and free speech) into a judicial weapon forcing cloistered religion and politically palatable speech, is really only a byproduct of a society nurtured in the paranoia of scientists toward certitudes they cannot quantify, fears of educators toward learning they cannot control, and anger from activists toward anything which challenges their agendas.
The evolutionary scientific establishment fares no better. Manipulation of data, disregard for the results of pure methodology and animosity toward western science’s spiritual roots are rampant. The establishment refuses to deal honestly with the law of biogenesis, accurate principles of mutation, laws of thermodynamics, irreducible complexity, deeply flawed dating instruments, the irrelevance of natural selection to origins, the origin of matter itself, a severely problematic geologic table, and much, much more. HopeCollege’s Prof. Brian Bodenbender said it well, “To pull evolution out is to tear down our whole understanding of science…” (HollandSentinel). Indeed! For flat-Earth science, it is a terrifying prospect to fall into the hands of a Designer!
But the issues of the heart are far more important than any of this. In reality, it is the heart (the whole inner person – mind and spirit) that should anchor this debate. Like it or not, when parents surrender their youth to the public educational system, they surrender the management of their children’s hearts to other very influential adults. Like it or not, the managers will operate by, and inculcate into students, the version of reality they are allowed to propagate. At the foundation of it all there are two choices – design or happenstance. The problem is that for decades now, illegitimate science and pseudo-objectivism has been indoctrinating parents to believe that educated people only teach half the scientific possibilities – those in line with happenstance.
Why worry about it? There are many reasons, not the least of which is integrity and intellectual honesty. The vast majority of American students represent homes where personal integrity and intellectual honesty are expected moral fundamentals. But when children begin their journey through presently mandated science curriculums, pragmatism becomes supreme while a child’s natural inclinations to recognize the world’s blatant intricate order and purposefulness (not to mention valued family worldviews) are quickly subordinated. In order to satisfy the academic standards of errant science, they learn to spew forth acceptable answers. Eventually they learn to accept this science/personal life duplicity as true or at least harmless. What an inexcusable abuse of the heart!
So, what is the difference between Kiona and the animals she loves? Well, if the present academic standards remain the same, she will be led to believe that there is only one informed choice. She is an animal, albeit a little further along than the rest. She will be taught, at least in principle, that her significance depends on her relationship to the rest of the herd (society) and her personal sense of meaning is grounded in her mysterious existence in the midst of a completely accidental universe. So much for science education that trains minds to critically evaluate all possibilities! What a travesty of an education!