Religious people are not necessarily stupid people. But, often their rationality is blinded by the blind faith that they have in their religion. If it is true, and recent psychological studies seem to point to the fact that it is, that human beings tend to accept what they want to be true rather than what is actually true, then since religious people want their religion to be true they would have tendency to believe it to be true whether it is or not. This is the crux of the matter: because of their desire for their belief religious people often cannot differentiate belief from justified knowledge. This incapability to differentiate faith from fact allows for faith to be equated with fact, which is exactly what religion claims is the case. Religious propositions come in the form of certain irrefutable statements that are founded upon nothing more than faith. There is no religion that simply claims that “it might be the case” that God created the universe, or that “it might be the case” that there is a God at all. The danger inherent in making such statements is that such propositions, while completely unfounded, can be easily passed off as fact to a public who is either ill-informed or simply misinformed. Religion seems to propose that an ill-informed public which accepts unfounded propositions as fact is better than a well-informed public that does not.
The recent proposition that “intelligent design” be included in science classroom across America is just such an example of religious perpetuation of ignorance. It is important to remind ourselves that these sorts of propositions are not the product nor are they only accepted by uneducated, unknown evangelicals, but by leaders of the free world, including the president (G.W. Bush) and much of his cabinet. Hypotheses such as “intelligent design” are based on bad science, science based on fallacious reasoning rather than science based on scientific methodologies. The fact that government leaders cannot or will not differentiate good from bad science is both ludicrous and dangerous. They are well-educated and able to create and pass laws that define this country’s education system. Such laws, based on superstition, accepted ignorance and wishful thinking, will be a legal move towards the dark ages of the rule of religion rather than rationality. When religion ruled Europe, people were able to conduct scientific research, but only within the confines of church doctrine. That is, as long as the science did not refute what the Church considered being true. If hypotheses such as “intelligent design” are able to be passed off as good scientific theories, then what is being pushed through on orders of the idiocy of this country is nothing more than a total demolition of any fruitful or serious science.
“Intelligent Design” is nothing more and nothing less than “creation science” and does not belong in the science classroom, but the question remains: are proponents of “intelligent design” intentionally being deceptive or are they simply ignorant of what good science is? First, changing the name from “creation science” to “intelligent design” or any other title that includes the robes of intelligence over the body of blind faith does not change the fact that blind faith is not the basis of any science. Religious people and politicians are simply being deceptive in the name of religion if this is their goal. Unfortunately this seems to be the case since creationism is not only the product of the ignorant, but also the product of well-educated people. It remains that if proponents of “intelligent design” are not uninformed then they are perhaps misinformed. If they are misinformed, then they have the responsibility of warranting evidence, which has not been produced to date. That so many educated people are misinformed and continue to be so, seems truly improbable. The main characters in the drama of “intelligent design” are themselves very intelligent people, which is apparent in their tracts and publications. Careful wording, and the use of “scientific jargon” leads one to believe that what is being perpetrated is being perpetrated premeditatedly. It also seems that religions condone such deception, if not because they themselves are willing to be deceptive then because they are ignorant of what good science really is. The rub here comes with the fact that good science does not support religious propositions. In fact, good science tends to point away from such propositions. It would not seem probable that religion would rely on something that would pull the very foundations of its existence from beneath it. Scientists and the public are continually reminded that science does not disprove religion absolutely, but it must be remembered that it is not the job of science to do so. However, it is the job of religion to offer evidence for its propositions, something that it has never been able to do in the entirety of its history. Instead of offering scientific evidence for propositions that they claim are scientific, religious proponents continually try to change the definition of science to fit their needs.
It seems obvious given the tactics used and the history of religious belief itself that the real motivation behind these examples of religious and political deception is not scientifically motivated in the least, but rather ethically motivated. Religious “truths” are based on what David Hume called “ought statements”: statements that are based on one judgment or another concerning an act. Religious leaders have ubiquitously claimed rights over the world of ethics, most claiming that without religion, morality is not possible. Again, this is an example of the religious perpetration of ignorance. Instead of pointing out valid alternatives such as utilitarianism, social contract theories, and even the merits of moral relativism, they claim that they and they alone hold the ultimate ethical Truth. In short, the religious argument for ethics is a straw-man argument. There are other ethical theories as valid if not more valid than the religious theories of morality that are based on rational reasoning rather than blind faith. This being the case, together with the complete lack of scientific evidence for their propositions, religious leaders and followers claim that not allowing “intelligent design” into the scientific classroom is unfair and immoral and that a scientific theory such as evolution can be deemed “immoral” in the first place. This is a mistaken proposition. Scientific theories are based on “is-statements”: statements that describe a certain situation or act without moral judgment. That is, scientific statements do not make judgments. Rather they describe reality. In claiming theories such as biological evolution as “immoral”, religionists are falling prey to Hume’s “is/ought” problem. To say that a scientific theory is “immoral” would be, according to Hume, the same as saying that gravity is immoral. The motivation for desiring “intelligent design” to be part of the scientific curriculum is nothing more than ethical. This is the case because religionists cannot win the scientific battle and so are forced to resort to ethical grandstanding, playing on the public’s ignorance of science while at the same time appealing to the emotional strings of parents in regard to the education of their children.
With the continued progress of science and its ability to explain this beautiful universe clearly and concisely, it is becoming apparent that religious views are anachronistic. So, religion resorts to an old adage: “if you can’t beat em’, join em’”. But, religion is not founded upon any scientific claim; not even close and so cannot join science. Religion is not a science, but a worn-out explanation of the world that offers nothing more than comfort at the cost of truth. Since religious intellectuals must accept this fact, they are forced to redefine what science is in order to justify, and hence bring respect to, the religious viewpoint: a viewpoint that is beyond deserving being respected by good science. While it might not be the case that the religious people that support these hideous misadventures into “science” are all stupid people, it remains to be seen if they have lost the ability to differentiate good from bad science. If they can make the distinction between good and bad science, then it follows that religious believers are simply perpetrating ignorance in order to keep alive a tradition that has long since run its course.
The religious push for scientific justification is simply a push to gain the respect that religion had perhaps a thousand years ago. The push for creation in the science classroom is sad, but dangerous as well because if allowed, it will undermine good science in this country, undermine the scientific education of those children that are taught such tripe, undermine what intellectual respect this country enjoys, and perpetrate an educational crime upon a nation that is already fighting the deterioration of its education system. While there might be a place for religious belief in society, that place is not in the scientific classroom of any school whose goal is to truly educate. To claim that religion belongs in the science classroom is an intellectual crime. Religion actually has two places in the education system if not three. The first is in a course on religion. In that case, all religions should be taught equally, and given equal amounts of respect. The second is in a literature class. Religion, while not based in truth, is part of our literary culture. A place in a course of literature would be a wonderful opportunity for young writers to view the bible in its proper place and context. The third place for religion in the classroom is a language class. So few Americans speak much less understand a second language. Given that the bible has been interpreted in almost every language in the world, it would be a great exercise in both understanding the perils of translation, and learning about other cultures to study the bible in a linguistic sense. These are acceptable places in the classroom for religion.
There is no question that religious thought is not scientific thought. It has no place in the science classroom, and if placed there, will wreak havoc upon the very foundation of human intellect. The conscious perpetration of ignorance upon young minds by religion under the auspice of science is nothing less than a crime against the children of this nation perpetrated by people who ought to know better. Religious conviction, propped up as universal truth, is the product of intentional or non-intentional ignorance. Unfortunately given the background of those who espouse religious hypotheses such as “intelligent design”, it seems as if there is nothing less than a deceptive practice by religion to perpetrate ignorance in the name of faith. Because religious hypotheses are completely void of any real evidence, are not able to be tested in any way, do not allow for alternative theories, and expect special treatment because of these shortcomings, religion does not belong in any science classroom, cannot be justified with science, does not deserve to be defined as science. Religion might have its place in the world, and that place may even be within the classrooms of the country, but to view religion as science is a crime that if not punishable by law, then will be punishable by the stupidity that it will wreak upon this nation and any nation that allows religion to perpetuate ignorance in the name of science.