Recent statistics show that over 80% of the USA believes in
God, considers themselves Christians, and most (if not all logically speaking) adhere to a creationist viewpoint concerning the existence
of the universe. Furthermore, there are no known atheist politicians, and in fact, the president and most of his administrators
are devoutly Christian and must claim to be such in order to hold office. It is most of these same people’s claim that it was
the founding fathers intent to create a Christian nation, a theocracy. However, CRSC, The Discovery Institute, and other Christian
organizations whose agenda includes the teaching of intelligent design in public elementary and high schools claim that science education
is grossly biased towards Darwinian evolution and against ID. It seems contradictory that in a country where the majority of
citizens are Christians led by Christian politicians, it can produce a public education system that is bias towards a theory that
is considered by those same people as not only dangerous to their beliefs, but wrong. This only makes sense if it is added that
these, and most people who have any degree of intelligence, accept that good science is our only source of justified knowledge. Good science gives us knowledge that can for all intent purposes be considered as being as close to truthful as possible. The
problem seems to be that creationists cannot tell the difference between good and bad science, or do not care about that difference.
ID
adherents claim that there is a debate as to whether or not Darwinian evolution is a valid theory, and because of this “debate” that
ID ought to be allowed in the public school science curriculum. The “debate” that the ID adherent claims exist is in fact: non-existent.
As was mentioned earlier, there is no debate about theories gotten by good science. Good science justifies a conclusion by certain
well-warranted premises. God-science simply claims their conclusion by pointing out what good science cannot justify.
The reasons for physical laws are not questioned. The reasons for chemical reactions are not questioned, and the reasons that
support biological sequences as well as biological relationships (such as evolution) are not questioned. In fact, much of our
medicines, medical procedures and other bio-technologies rely upon the reasons given for the conclusions that microevolution
is in direct relation to the macro-world. The reasons for the conclusion that evolution is a sound theory are not debated, but
some of its mechanizations are still being studied. We do not understand a great deal as to how they work, what they influence, and
what their relationship is to life as we know it, but we do know that they are related to life as we know it, but we have solid reasons
for concluding that life is in fact the product of biological evolution as explained in part by Darwin. The so-called “bias”
towards Darwinian evolution is not based in fact, but in ignorance and the acceptance of that ignorance.
According to the National
Science Board, “Surveys conducted in the United States and Europe reveal that many citizens do not have a firm grasp of basic scientific
facts and concepts, nor do they have an understanding of the scientific process. In addition, belief in pseudoscience (an indicator
of scientific illiteracy) seems to be widespread among Americans and Europeans. Studies also suggest that not many Americans are technologically
literate.” This is one of the reasons that ID is even considered as science by creationists in the first place. But, here
the important point to note is that this explains why over 80% of the USA (most of the general public) claims that they are Christian,
while at the same time claiming that its public education is “biased” towards evolution. While believing that ID is a valid
science, most of the American public also believes that good science does not contradict the so-called science that ID is based on.
This is only possible if the public does not have a grasp on good science, which it does not if it accepts ID as a valid science.
The National science Board further claims that “Although Americans express strong support for science and technology (S&T), they
are not very well informed about these subjects.” Because Americans, generally speaking, do not have an acceptable grasp on the scientific
method (scientific process), but at the same time rely on that method to produce advances that they depend upon without question,
they are able to accept the claim that ID is a science, and that it is possible to be biased towards Darwinian evolution, scientifically
speaking. Because of a lack of understanding, the general public does not see the allowance of ID as a scientific theory as
a contradiction.
The scientific method is not debatable, but the interpretation of scientific data gotten from that method is.
What is being posited by adherents to ID is that the scientific method is biased towards Darwinian evolution, and ought to be debatable.
This does not make sense if the method is understood in the first place. The method that good science uses to extract data onanything is based upon results, tested over time, that are consistently better than alternative theories, and that can be produced
regularly and predictably. Such results are considered plausible only if they strictly follow these scientific guidelines. Otherwise they are not considered as science. This leaves two us with two possible conclusions concerning the desire of ID to
have God-science included in the science curriculum of schools. Creationists are either deceptive concerning their motives for
wanting ID in the science classroom, or they are ignorant about what they are claiming, perhaps both. They desire to allow a
pseudo-science to be recognized as science by changing a method of enquiry that has proven itself beyond a doubt time and time again.
The “bias” that ID claims is that the scientific method does not allow pseudo-sciences to be considered as good science.
Given the
information that is known about The Discovery Institute: that its leaders are devoutly Christian and that it is not ignorant of what
it is doing in positing a theory based in pseudo-science as good science, and given that several of its leaders are actually scientists
and so are presumably well versed in what good science actually is, it follows that it is being deceptive in its claims. To
further complicate the situation, its deception is accepted by most of the American public, not because it understands what is being
posited, but because most of the American public does not know anything about the concept of validity and invalidity, nor does it
have the capability of differentiating good from bad science. This explains that while the general public does not doubt that
science is our most trustworthy source for understanding the world around us, they also claim that the concept of intelligent design
should be allowed in public schools. Creationism is not science, and although creationists are trying to re-create the science classroom,
this fact will not change. What needs to change, however, is the education of the public about good science.