Published: January 06, 2006 02:20 pm            

Let philosophy link evolution, creation

By PEDRO O. VEGA

The recent decision by a U.S. district judge enjoining any school in Dover, York County, from teaching intelligent design illustrates a sad cultural fact.

We live in a culture fraught with conflicts and contradictions. On one side, we find those who say that the scientific method is the only way we can attain real knowledge about reality. Opposing them are those who are suspicious of any knowledge derived from science. They rely, instead, on facts they derive from a literal reading of the Bible.

Defenders of these opposing views allow for no middle ground, particularly when it comes to high school curricula. However, I think there is a middle ground where our students can meet to compare, contrast and, if possible, synthesize these seemingly opposing views, which would be through a third field of knowledge known as philosophy.

But when it comes to philosophy, we hold other misconceptions.

People confuse philosophy with either religion or opinion, such as having a “personal philosophy” and therefore something foggy, subjective, individualistic and, in the end, uninformative.

Not so. Philosophy is the oldest science. Philosophy involves the reasoned, systematic investigation of the nature of the universe and our place in it.

It is different from science in that its results do not necessarily depend on observation or scientific experi-ment.

It is also distinct from religion or mysticism in that its method of inquiry is entirely rational and only assigns place to faith, insight or intuition insofar as it can be subject to reasoned analysis, so says Wikipedia.

Philosophy has many branches, such as logic, the study of right thinking; epistemology, the study of knowledge; and metaphysics, the study of things in themselves and of all reality.

It also includes ethics, the study of the norms of correct behavior, and politics, the study of how human societies are best governed.

Western science owes its ascendancy to the best of what classical philosophy had to offer: The concept of an orderly universe, of natural rights, of God as first cause, prime mover and intelligent designer.

The greatest theologians and scientists of the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance were all outstanding natural philosophers in their own rights.

They understood very well that a creative tension and a dialogue should exist concerning knowledge gained either through reason or through faith.

They also held that knowledge gained from reason or faith formed a single truth.

To help solve our modern conflict, I propose that introductory courses in philosophy be taught in high schools across the country. Such a curriculum would expose students to the origins of Western culture and civilization and would teach our children who we are, where we came from and why we think the way we do.

Within this context, children would learn that there are rational arguments for the existence of God and that learning and discussing one of them, the argument of design, would provide the appropriate academic context needed to discuss intelligent design without mixing it up with either experimental science or religion.

Of course, since philosophy is a field of rational inquiry, students also would be exposed to philosophical arguments against God and intelligent design. Yet this is part of a package deal if we really want our schools to preserve their objective neutrality on the issue of intelligent design.

If we were to restore the same academic freedom to discuss these issues rationally that the medieval Catholic schools enjoyed in their time, we would be doing our children a favor.

They would leave our high schools trained not only to be productive citizens of a free economy, but also better informed about the universe, the nature of things, the meaning of life, the rules of moral behavior and the sources of our inalienable natural rights.

The fact that the freedom to study these matters is nonexistent in our modern public school system should be a matter of deep concern, because the absence of this freedom is a principal cause for our present climate of moral decay and cynicism.

Restoring a modicum of philosophical training in our schools may benefit people on both sides of the issue of human origins. Teaching philosophy may forge critical thinkers better tailored to experimental science – a stated goal of naturalists – and also may lead some students to the threshold of faith – which would delight churches, theologians and all God-fearing families.

Our cultural debate on human origins is not between believers and unbelievers. It is between two factions whose main exponents are off base about the nature and scope of philosophy and the power of human reason.

The domain of human knowledge is much larger than these narrow-minded people would have us believe, and that’s the real tragedy of our situation.



Pedro O. Vega also keeps an Internet “blog” at www.vivificat.org. He may be reached via e-mail at pov@vivificat.org. His column appears on the second Sunday of each month.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.