A while back, Stephen Jones quoted from G.A. Kerkut's "Implications of
Evolution." I thought it would be interesting to see what would happen if
the theory in question were ID instead of Evolutionary theory, so I did
some substituting. Here is the new version, for your amusement:
"The undergraduate of today is just as bad; he is still the same
opinion-swallowing grub. He will gladly devour opinions and views
that he does not properly understand in the hope that he may later
regurgitate them during one of his examinations. Regardless of his
subject, be it Engineering, Physics, English or Biology, he will have
faith in theories that he only dimly follows and will call upon
various authorities to support what he does not understand. In this
he differs not one bit from the irrational theology student of the
bygone age who would mumble his dogma and hurry through his
studies in order to reach the peace and plenty of the comfortable
living in the world outside. But what is worse, the present-day
student claims to be different from his predecessor in that he thinks
scientifically and despises dogma, and when challenged he says in
defence, "After all, one has to accept something, or else it takes a
very long time to get anywhere."
Well, let us see the present-day student "getting somewhere." For
some years now I have tutored undergraduates on various aspects
of Biology. It is quite common during the course of conversation to
ask the student if he knows the evidence for ID. This usually
evokes a faintly superior smile at the simplicity of the question,
since it is an old war-horse set in countless examinations. "Well,
sir,
there is the evidence from [what?]," the
student will say in a nursery-rhyme jargon, sometimes even ticking
off the words on his fingers. He would then sit and look fairly
complacent and wait for a more difficult question to follow, such as
the nature of the evidence for Unnatural Preselection. Instead I
would
continue on with ID.
"Do you think that the ID Theory is the best explanation
yet advanced to explain animal interrelationships?" I would ask.
"Why, of course, sir," would be the reply in some amazement at my
question." There is nothing else, except for the evolutionary
explanation
held by some naturalists and most biologists."
"So," I would continue, "you believe in ID because there is
no other theory?"
"Oh, no, sir," would be the reply, "I believe in it because of the
evidence I just mentioned."
"Have you read any book on the evidence for ID?" I would
ask.
"Yes, sir," and here he would mention the names of authors of a
popular school textbook, "and of course, sir, there is that book by
Johnson, Darwin on Trial."
"Have you read this book?" I asked.
"Well, not all through, sir."
"About how much?"
"The first part, sir."
"The first fifty pages?"
"Yes, sir, about that much; maybe a bit less."
"I see, and that has given you your firm understanding of
ID?"
"Yes, sir."
"Well, now, if you really understand an argument you will be able
to indicate to me not only the points in favour of the argument but
also the most telling points against it."
"I suppose so, sir."
"Good. Please tell me, then, some of the evidence against the
theory of ID."
"Against what, sir?"
"The theory of ID."
"But there isn't any, sir."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 30 2000 - 00:34:05 EDT