主题：大一英语作文：别教智能设计论 -- 菠萝头

Intelligent design has made a comeback. In “New Texas Standards Question Evolution, Fossil Record” in Science magazine, Yudhijit Bhattacharjee reports that an amendment has been passed by the Texas Board of Education, requiring biology textbooks to include the viewpoint of intelligent design as an alternative to the theory of evolution (Bhattacharjee). In light of substantive scientific and social trends, the requirement of Board of Education’s to include the religious belief of intelligent design in the curriculum is unreasonable because intelligent design is hardly scientific and because it violate the separation of church and state.

Among scientists, especially those who specialize in biology, evolution is no longer a controversial idea. In fact, there are few recent articles in journals arguing for or against evolution because there is little point to debate as more and more chains of fossils directly prove the evolution of different species. Also, creationist articles hardly make it through the rigorous peer-review.

To begin with, intelligent design is neither rational nor scientific. There is little evidence supporting that an intelligent agency designed and created our universe. At the same time, however, the theory of evolution not only gives a plausible explanation for why the universe formed but also has been extensively proven in the past century.

Many claims that proponents of intelligent design make are based on ancient religious accounts that are not falsifiable and not reproducible. According to Karl Popper, who is regarded as “one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century (Thornton),” a meaningful theory must be falsifiable and reproducible (Popper). For example, the theory that states seatbelts decrease the possibility of severe injury is scientific because crash tests that car manufacturers frequently conduct can be repeated and could prove the theory wrong if, during the experiments, the simulative human beings are not safer with seatbelt on. Intelligent design does not share this characteristic. On one hand, the claim of intelligent design is so enclosed and self-consistent that, to its believers, it cannot be refuted in any way. This characteristic (stubbornness?) of intelligent design has been its fortress. Some supporters of intelligent design deny radiocarbon dating as effective means to determine age of organic materials in archeology, making unfalsifiable claims that the designer of our world could have faked the evidence (Ray). On the other hand, the supposed process of intelligent design is unlikely to be reproduced, therefore impossible to be verified and be accepted as serious claim.

The longtime mutually-exclusive opponent of intelligent design, evolution, has developed and been accepted as a legitimate scientific theory. The most direct proof has been found through reproducible experiments. In a 1991 article by James R. Weinberg, Victoria R. Starczak and Daniele Jrg, the authors detailed their experiment designed to observe “the entire process of speciation” through mating lab-environment-speciated Polychaete worms with those in natural environment (Weinberg, Starczak, and Jrg 1214). The worms in the lab were isolated and they reproduced only with the other worms and their offspring in the lab. A control group of worms in their natural environment was set up in the same way, but was separated into two sets. After several years of isolation, the lab-speciated worms failed to reproduce with worms that came from the control group. According to the article:

The authors concluded that “speciation occurred very rapidly in the laboratory after a founder event (Weinberg, Starczak, and Jrg 1218)”. The result confirming the existence of evolution and evidence of life that can be dated back to 3,800 million years ago contradicts with intelligent design (Mojzsis et al.). It is a reasonable assumption that evolution has brought the diversity of life to earth over a long period of time rather than a god who has brought the diversity over one week.

One could argue that there is a lack of complete certainty in evolution. But consider this: since Darwin’s time, the knowledge of how life on the planet came to be has expanded as scientists discovered the processes of adaptation, genetic drift, gene flow, mutation, natural selection and speciation. Scientists have been testing the theory of evolution since On the Origin of Species was first printed. No adequate opposite theory has appeared. By contrast, modern creationism in the cover of intelligent design has not progressed or included any new knowledge. It is in the same place it was two thousand years ago; it is not getting nearer to the truth. Although evolution has not yet been proven as a complete fact from a purely logical point of view, there is little doubt that evolution gives a better answer to the question.

If intelligent design is not the truth, it should not be in the classrooms of public schools. Jennifer Miller, a teacher from Pennsylvania, expressed this point of view when she walked out of her classroom refusing to read a four paragraph statement that the teacher said would “knowingly and intentionally misrepresent subject matter or curriculum” because “Intelligent design is not science. It is not biology. It is not an accepted scientific theory (Mervis)”. Ms. Miller is not alone in believing that teaching intelligent design violates the ethnics of teaching. One of the outspoken organizations, the National Center for Science Education says “[we] have been opposing efforts by creationists to weaken or block the teaching of evolution (National Center for Science Education)”. Indeed, there has been little support of intelligent design from the scholarly community.

Not all people agree with Ms. Miller, though. In a 2005 Gallop poll, 54% of the polled think that creationism should be taught in science classes of public school while 43% think intelligent design should be (Gallup). One of these people is David N. Clark, who wrote to Science magazine saying students should be presented with both theories (creationism and intelligent design as one and evolution the other) because, “Like it or not, intelligent design has adherents” (Clark). However, Mr. Clark missed several problems. For one, intelligent design and evolution are not equally sound. As demonstrated at length earlier, the difference between the ideas of evolution and intelligent design is like that of medicine and herbs. Even though Mr. Clark argues that intelligent design has “adherents”, the ideology should not be taught because it is pseudoscientific (Clark).

Moreover, in response to the freedom of speech arguments that intelligent design should be taught in public schools, the separation of church and state requires that in public sectors no preference be given to any kind of religious belief. The First Amendment to United States Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (U.S. Constitution amendment. I). Therefore, students have more preferable and legitimate source of religion than the biology classes in a public school.

In conclusion, I would like to discuss the religious freedom for students from religious families. Few have considered whether giving students a break from the religious environment in which they probably have lived since their birth would be the right thing. The earliest violation of a person’s religious freedom is to baptize or proselytize in tradition of any religion before he or she even has the ability to refuse. In the name of free speech and family value, church schools and families have prolonged such compulsion in the form of their education. Under these forces, individuals do not receive the essential knowledge to make informed decision about their faith. As a matter of fact, crucial knowledge such as the authenticity of the Bible stories and the theory of evolution is known among a stunningly small portion of the religious population. According to a poll by ABCNEWS, 79%, 75% and 73% of Protestants polled believe in the Bible stories of the Red Sea, the Creation and of Noah respectively while 32%, 24% and 29% of non-religious polled believe these stories literally (Morris). For this reason, public education should not teach intelligent design; instead, it should promote freedom of faith, including the lack of it, by teaching the legitimate knowledge essential to make informed decisions concerning theological belief.

Bhattacharjee, Yudhijit. “SCIENCE EDUCATION: New Texas Standards Question Evolution, Fossil Record.” Sciencemag.org 3 April 2009. Web. 7 February 2010.

Clark, David N. Letter. Science 22 April 2005: 495. sciencemag.org. Web. 7 February 2010.

Gallup. “Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design.” Gallup. 7 February 2010. Web. 7 February 2010.

Mervis, Jeffrey. “Dover Teachers Want No Part of Intelligent-Design Statement.” Sciencemag.com 28 January 2005. Web. 7 February 2010.

Mojzsis, S.J., G. Arrhenius, K. D. McKeegan, T. M. Harrison, A. P. Nutman and C. R. L. Friend. “Evidence for life on Earth before 3,800 million years ago.” Nature.com 7 November 1996. Web. 7 February 2010.

Morris, David. “Belief and Blame: Six in 10 Take Bible Stories Literally, But Most Don't Blame Jews for Jesus' Death” abcnews.go.com Web. 7 February 2010.

National Center for Science Education. “Creationism Controversy.” NCSE. Web. 7 February 2010.

Popper, Karl R. “The Logic of Scientific Discovery” 5th ed. (London: Hutchinson, 1959), pp. 40-41, 46.

Ray, S. E. “Evolution verses Creationism - What Are The Facts?” Eternal Path. Web. 7 February 2010.

Thornton, Stephen. "Karl Popper." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. Edward N. Zalta. Summer 2009 ed. Web. 7 February 2010.

Weinberg, James R., Victoria R. Starczak, and Daniele Jrg. “Evidence for Rapid Speciation Following a Founder Event in the Laboratory.” Evolution, 46. 4 (1992): 1214-1220. JSTOR. Web. 7 February 2010.

献花吧