oh so proud of Ohio

On a late night run to Steak and Shake, while waiting forever for my food, I flipped through a stack of newspaper sections lying on a nearby table. I've been carrying around this gem ever since, just waiting to share. From the Nov. 17, 2005 Columbus Dispatch, page D5:

The Kansas school board, in approving standards last week that cast doubt on evolution, might have helped boost an entirely new area of science, a move Ohio started last year

Where to begin? I'll start with the second part: someone will have to tell me, I guess, if the claim is true that Ohio "started" this move toward a new area of science. I've lived in Ohio most of my life; I really don't think this is true. Maybe we were the first state to have legislation on behalf of, or state school board endorsement of this dogma masquerading as science. But did we really start the move? Either way, I guess, I'm embarrassed for the state that I love dearly.

But look, just calling "intelligent design" a "new area of science" is ludicrous. THERE IS NO SCIENCE BEHIND INTELLIGENT DESIGN. In fact, the proposition is a denial of science. There is no hypothesis. No collecting of empirical evidence. No tests to run and re-run, no measure for accuracy of the proposition and validity of its claims. Allow me to quote a bit more:

...The Kansas board also challenged widely accepted science that all life has a common origin and that natural chemical processes created the building blocks of life.

The board also went one step further - broadening the definition of science.

You see, that's the only way that these anti-education folks can cram the so-called theory of "intelligent design" down the throats of innocent, and politically naive, kids: they had to change the very nature of science because "intelligent design" IS NOT SCIENCE. As often as proponents of "i.d." publicly state otherwise, this move is the lie that exposes them. They've also done it Ohio, I learned:

Last year ... the [Ohio] State Board of Education did the same thing. "We changed the definition as well - very similarly, quite honestly," said Deborah Owens Fink, a state board member from Richfield.

That's right folks, at least two states no longer care to educate their children on sound, fundamental science. Despite the fact that basic tenets of evolution have been soundly tested and affirmed by ample evidence, elected politicians are apparently better experts than professionals. Peer review, academic standards, and the scientific method itself mean nothing to these people: rather than expand their own worldview, they choose to try and limit the view for others.

The sad part is, these two propositions, that life on earth has evolved over millions and billions of years, and that there is an "intelligent designer" - can't we just say God?! - who created, crafted, even directed the process, are not contradictory. Most of the people believe they are biblical literalists - that they take the Bible word-for-word as Truth. Yet the real contradiction, if their view were correct, is encountered in the first and second chapter of the first book of the Bible. There we discover that there are in fact TWO very DIFFERENT stories of creation. Taken literally, these stories themselves contradict each other; reading the Bible in this way fails before it really begins. A wider perspective, one that takes these texts as a testament to faith but not as literal truth, allows the reader to see that their power and their truth is found in their meaning, not their word-for-word dictation. And with such an understanding, evolution can stand as sound science without being an affront to God; and belief in God can stand as sound faith without being anemic to an inquisitive mind: in fact, the Creator gave us gifts for learning, studying, and enlarging our understanding. Jesus told us that the Truth would set us free; he did not ask us to bind ourselves to it. Paul, writing in Romans, encourages us to be transformed by the renewing of our minds; he did not advise us to close our minds and never change a bit.

There's more in the article, including a clear indication of the opportunity for blowback. I wonder, now that the definition of science has been shot to hell, how these folks will react should any of this come to pass:

In Kansas schools, science might no longer be limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena. New definitions could open new research realms.

"Like witchcraft," said Kent State University anthropologist Owen Lovejoy, who studies the evolution of early humans.

Or voodoo, ESP or the study of ghosts.

But Owens Fink disagrees.

"I think he's worrying unnecessarily," she said. "We wanted to investigate intelligent design."

Of course she thinks that. Because she doesn't want to admit to the real possibility of what she has helped achieve. Now that science has been re-defined to be the butt of a very bad joke, what's to stop people from pushing all kinds of strange and completely unverifiable theories as "science"? It was the prophet Hosea who said, many centuries ago, "For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind."

In fact, the article goes on to talk about a group that is among the "i.d." boosters: Raelians. I've heard that term before but always thought it was a joke. Not so! It turns out that Raelians believe that "extraterrestrial scientists brought DNA from another planet to get the ball of life rolling" - and they're thrilled to support "i.d." because it allows their alien theories to be discussed in the midst of Bunsen burners and microscopes and periodic tables. Though if this really pans out, why on earth would schools waste money on scientific equipment that will merely collect dust?

The whirlwind is coming - may the harvest be plentiful indeed!