Bill Frist aligns himself with President Bush (again), most likely in a effort to attract the Christian conservative base for the his bid at the Presidency in '08. This time it's the question of whether ID should be taught in public schools. I assume Frist and Bush are thinking of having ID taught in science classes in public school and not merely in psuedo-science classes or critical thinking classes that distinguish superstition and faith from scientific method or pop culture classes.

Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, aligned himself with President Bush on Friday when he said that the theory of intelligent design as well as evolution should be taught in public schools.

Such an approach "doesn't force any particular theory on anyone," Mr. Frist said in Nashville, according to The Associated Press. "I think in a pluralistic society that is the fairest way to go about education and training people for the future." A Washington spokesman for the senator, Nick Smith, said later that the report was accurate.

The assumption here, as we find elsewhere, is that there is a scientific debate. The suggestion is that scientists are "forcing" a view on school children; that these scientists don't value pluralistic societies and fairness. But these rhetorical ploys are just absurd. There is no such debate within the scientific community about whether ID presents a viable alternative to the evolutionary account of speciation or other change in biology. Quite apart from Frist's implication, it is central to the scientific model of inquiry that scientists welcome a diverse set of competing hypotheses and fairly evaluate all of them. There are controversies within the scientific community about the details of actual evolutionary processes, and these controversies are not hidden away, or unfairly ignored. ID, however, is just not a competitor; it offers us nothing to help us resolve these issues.

Ironically, it might seem as though Frist's use of "pluralism" and "fairness" aligns him with the "moral relativists" who downplay truth and objectivity, and welcome diversity and openness. But not so (though I'm sure he'll accept the moral relativist's vote even if he rejects their worldview). Instead he believes (or wants certain voters to believe that he believes) that ID is true and has not been given a fair chance to prove itself. But as a nearly empty theory with religious or supernatural implications, it can't be proven, or even falsified. That's the irony.
Frist Urges 2 Teachings on Life Origin | New York Times

TrackBack