Toward Reconciling Science and Belief

The struggle between science and belief continues now in Kansas with another assessment by the state's education board regarding how and what children should be taught about human origins. Two positions are being presented: intelligent design (ID) and evolution. Both assert they are sciences. So far there has been no discussion before the adjudicators about what science is, so it remains unclear whether these two points of view are legitimately comparable. This sets up the likely absurdity that the board is viewing two things as if they are of one type -- i.e., they are making an apples-vs-oranges comparison.

Of course the ID proponents are saying they are scientists. Perhaps these folks imagine science to be something it is not. Said another way, IDers may be viewing themselves as doing science because they don't understand what science is. Thus it is possible (likely?) the concerns of ID proponents may not be comparable to those of non-ID science. Yet, as long as ID proponents view themselves as doing science, they will see themselves in opposition to non-ID science. This shackles their options.

But they have taken this position because others they have tried -- for instance, supporting the inclusion of prayer into school curriculum -- have failed. However, their choice now is causing the formal presentation of two different ideas as if they can be compared. It's hard to find a meaningful analogy to this situation. But here's one (alright, a feeble one):

What if this struggle were about whether the sunrise was beautiful or whether it was warming? (In a way, this is not so far from what is occurring in this dispute.) The aesthetes would argue for the former while the thermologists would argue for the latter. One point of view is entirely subjective (perhaps not entirely) while the other is objective (perhaps entirely).

It appears from the education board's point of view, these two positions are equally valid regarding their educational content, and further, both are versions of the same thing. Why else might the board wish to have both points of view presented together?

It's useful to ask why this dispute and debate continues? Because at its core it is about how we view ourselves. And the ID proponents feel their point of view is not receiving emphasis and support in the culture overall comp