So, a bunch of academics and clerics have formed themselves into a cosy little group of delusional psychopaths calling themselves 'Truth in Science'. Apparently they wish to teach 'intelligent design' as part of the UK science curriculum, and claim that there must be an 'intelligent creator' behind the process of evolution. They have currently targeted 5,000 schools so far, and are actively promulgating their views in the university sector in the UK.
Fortunately, the Department for Education & Science is pressurising schools to ignore this pernicious stuff. As it said in a recent statement, "Neither creationism nor intelligent design are taught as a subject in schools, and are not specified in the science curriculum. The National Curriculum for science clearly sets down that pupils should be taught that the fossil record is evidence for evolution, and how variation and selection may lead to evolution or extinction."
However, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, which oversees the development of the national curriculum, in effect guiding exam boards, said discussions of "intelligent design" or "creationism" could take place in science classes. The National Curriculum Online website says for science at Key Stage 4 (GCSE level): "Students should be taught how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence (for example Darwin's theory of evolution)." Classes should also cover "ways in which scientific work may be affected by the context in which it takes place (for example, social, historical, moral, spiritual), and how these contexts may affect whether or not ideas are accepted."
The QCA's argument is supported by Nick Cowan, a chemistry teacher at Liverpool's Blue Coat School, who says the packs promoting intelligent design are useful in debating Darwinist evolution. He continued by saying they the packs are "very scholarly" and could be extremely useful in helping children understand the importance of scientific debate. Mr Cowan also told the BBC, "Darwin has for many people become a sacred cow. There's a sense that if you criticise Darwin you must be some kind of religious nut case. We might has well have said Einstein shouldn't have said what he did because it criticised Newton."
Both the QCA and Cowan's position are dismissed by James Williams, science course leader at Sussex University's school of education. He told the Times Educational Supplement: "This opens a legitimate gate for the inclusion of creationism or intelligent design in science classes as if they were legitimate theories on a par with evolution fact and theory. I'm happy for religious theories to be considered in religious education, but not in science where consideration could lead to a false verification of their status as being equal to scientific theories."
The only thing I would add is this: if 'intelligent design' is the explanation being offered by certain scientists to explain the existence of various phenomena, what scientific evidence do they offer for the a priori existence of that force - unless, of course, they wish to assert that it existed simply as a 'cause without cause'?
It seems to me that unless such evidence is forthcoming from them, then their claims are simply an ill-formed and untested hypothesis that verges on the completely spurious. Empiric proof that self-delusion, mendacity and duplicity are their real motivations!