There’s been much ballyhoo in the Opinion section of the Free Lance-Star and elsewhere over the debate between Darwinian evolutionary theory, intelligent design, and President Bush’s comments in favor of ID in the classroom. Yet for all the heartburn from proponents of evolution who want to keep intelligent design out of the classroom, Phil Dodson rightly mentions that this idea isn’t anything new, not to mention that it’s been taught in the classroom for centuries:
‘Intelligent design’ is properly taught in some high schools and at many colleges across the United States. Students encounter ‘intelligent design,’ or, more correctly, the ‘argument from design,’ in Philosophy 101. The subject is further discussed in more advanced philosophy of religion courses where students delve into the origin and structure of religious concepts, particularly the so-called ‘proofs’ for God’s existence.
‘Intelligent design’ is one of those. It was envisioned by philosopher/ theologian Thomas of Aquinas, who lived from 1225 until 1274. The Catholic church conferred sainthood upon him for his advancement of Christianity. Thomas, who adopted much of Aristotle’s philosophy and retooled it into Catholic theology, attempted to demonstrate that God exists.
Indeed, though I doubt that St. Thomas Aquinas would have embraced ID as the end-all-be-all. However, the guiding principles are there. While I would disagree with Dodson that ID’s only place is in philosophy class, there is a sailent point that philosophy should indeed be taught at the high school level.
Philosophy does indeed bring new questions to light that scientific method can address to some degree. As for the whole evolution vs. intelligent design debate, no teacher or professor worth their salt would exclude either theory. Rather, both should be taught, debated, addressed on their merits and pitfalls, and students should be encouraged to come to their own conclusions.
Otherwise, what are we really doing to the hard sciences if we are merely indoctrinating (either evolution or ID) rather than creating scientists?