Intelligent Design - Unintelligent Teaching
As you might have heard by now, the Board of Education in Kansas voted to allow the teaching of alternatives to evolution in schools. The wording implies that teachers should, in addition to teaching evolution, also teach that some schools of thinking have found evidence that there is “design and purpose” to every scientific phenomenon.
I, of course, agree that there is “design and purpose” to everything in this universe. However, I do not think that they should teach this in public schools. The US has taken a stance on religion v. state and has decided that religion cannot be established or hindered by the state. If they are going to initiate such a policy, they must stick to it. They cannot implement religion simply when it suits their fancy, while other instances of religious expression are vehemently suppressed. You cannot eat your cake and have it too (and yes, I know the expression is “have your cake and eat it too” but anyone can have their cake and eat it. What they really want is to eat their cake and still have some left over to eat again).
I also disagree with the dissenters. Their main objection to “Intelligent Design” is that, “It is not science.” Unfortunately, this is short sighted. Yes, according to the standards of western scientists, Intelligent Design cannot be considered science because it is not based on experimentation. In classical Islamic thought, however, even the study of calligraphy can be considered a science. All sciences (‘ulum), whether religious, philosophical, technological, etc., have their own principles by which they are bound. Intelligent design does not belong in the pure sciences, but rather belongs in the phenomenological sciences.
The issue with American public schools is that they do not teach many of the sciences that would include Intelligent Design, such as metaphysics and ethics.
There is no doubt that the current education system in America is severely flawed, but one cannot change it piece by piece. To correct it properly, the entire foundation on which it is based (the US constitution) must be reinterpreted. I have not seen that happen as of yet, but with a virtually “brand new” Supreme Court,” perhaps we will, inshaAllah.
