Teaching intelligent design could help students learn to thinkOK...I disabuse myself of the notion that intelligent design is an alternative to evolution. I base this on the simple observation that intelligent design is not a theory, has no hypothesis, and has no testable predictions. I don't even consider what is "the opposite of evolution". Loewy claims it is creationism. What does he say is the opposite of relativity? Germ theory? Mechanics? Science helps us answer questions about the world and universe we live in. If a theory answers a question, then it supplants ignorance with knowledge. Only in that sense is a scientific theory the opposite of anything.
To begin with, it is important to disabuse ourselves of the notion intelligent design is an alternative to, or the opposite of, evolution. The opposite of evolution is creationism, the theory that the Earth was created in six days, less than 6,000 years ago.
Yet there is more nonsense:
The opposite of intelligent design is no intelligent design, or atheism.Soooo...the opposite of atheism is intelligent design? Loewy, at best, is etymologically challenged, considering "atheism" derives from a- + theos, meaning godless. And every school kid knows the opposite of godless is...uh, godful. According to Loewry, the opposite of atheism is intelligent design, by which he means intelligent design is godful. No arguments from me. Bravo.
Need we go further in dismembering his editorial? Ahh, why not lop something else off:
While faith is everything in religion, it is not everything in schools. Every proposition has to be empirically examined to determine its validity. Thus, when intelligent design is examined in school, there is no a priori assumption of its correctness, or incorrectness. The evidence is examined and the chips can fall where they may.If all classes are taught without a priori assumptions as to the validity of the knowledge being doled out, then how do we expect students to ever get past simple addition and subtraction? No, the truth is that we have committees of experts who set the standards to which students are taught - i.e. those a priori assumptions. Given some of Loewy's other comments in the past, it is clear he angling towards "academic freedom" - indirectly arguing that intelligent design should be treated as a freedom of speech issue within the classroom. As a constitutional law scholar, Loewy's words carry weight. It's too bad his powers of deduction, at least as seen in his Lubbock Avalanche editorial, don't carry the same intellectualism that he exhibits as a lawyer.
Even as familiar with the Kitzmiller v. Dover case as he is, this final example represents Loewy's own "breathtaking inanity" in its complete ignorance or outright avoidance of facts:
I would propose a comparable course for high school seniors. I would have them read a book like "Of Pandas and People," a book designed by proponents of intelligent design. I would also have them read a book like Richard Dawkins' book, seeking to prove that there was no intelligent designer.Of Pandas and People was a direct translation of a creationist text to a non-creationist text, by the simple search-and-replace of "creator" with "designer". So while Loewy has argued that intelligent design is not creationism, he proposes that our high school seniors should be taught with a whitewashed creationist text.
Loewy should stick to criminal and constitutional law as it is evident he understands little about the ID/evolution debate. Next time he should have an editor edit his editorial for lucidity.