Intelligent design should not be taught in public school

Agree

1 of 12

by Xiaoqian Lim

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

In 1987, the biblical view on the origin of life was eliminated from school curriculum when Louisiana's Creationism Act, which advocated the instruction of the belief that God created the universe, was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (1). However, opposition to the theory of evolution has arisen once again in Intelligent Design (ID), the belief that there is scientific evidence for an intelligent designer, but it should not be taught in science classes as an equal scientific theory to evolution because it is not science, it violates the Constitution, and it misleads the public about the theory of evolution.

The Intelligent Design proponents' main argument is that some features of the universe and of organisms are far too complex to have evolved through chance events, as described through the theory of natural selection, and that the complexity of organisms is evidence for an intelligent designer. The movement makes sure not to specify an intelligent designer and they deny that they are creationists under the guise of science. To support their claim, they cite biochemical and statistical evidence. Michael J. Behe, an advocate for Intelligent Design, refers to systems that appear to have been designed as irreducibly complex systems. He argues that like a mousetrap, which can only function with all the parts assembled, irreducibly complex systems cannot have formed through natural selection, which would produce a complex system through many, consecutive adjustments. "You can't catch a mouse with just a platform, then add a spring and catch a few more mice, then add a holding bar and catch a few more. All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice," he explains (2). Since the theory is scientific and not religious, the supporters reason that schools should "teach the controversy" on the origin of life and present ID as a scientific alternative to evolution because it does not violate the U.S. Constitution, which states that the government cannot make laws establishing a religion (4).

On the contrary, Intelligent Design disregards the fundamentals of science. For instance, a scientific hypothesis must be testable and refutable. Intelligent Design is neither. As chemistry teacher Joel Weiner said about Intelligent Design, "They have to have hypotheses that are testable, but they start with a conclusion. Science just doesn't work that way" (qtd. in 8). Unlike science, ID activists chooses its conclusion and gathers information that supports its opinion because they are unable to form a verifiable hypothesis. It is impossible to conceive an experiment testing for an intelligent designer, so it is likewise impossible to prove or counter the existence of one. Furthermore, because ID is not a scientific hypothesis it cannot become a scientific theory. Obviously, including Intelligent Design into the science curriculum would mean revising the definition of science to include supernatural occurrences, which means that even astrology could be considered a scientific theory (3). Still, what of the scientific evidence supporting ID? Kenneth R. Miller disagrees with Behe's claim of irreducible complexity and uses Behe's mousetrap example for his own argument defending natural selection, stating that though the separate parts may not be capable of catching a mouse, the parts still have efficient usages. In support of this, he indicates that the wooden base can initially be used as a paperweight and the catch as a fishhook, and other parts can be added to produce a new system that functions differently from its individual features. As well as being discredited by scientists, Intelligent Design has also lost in the courtroom. In the trial Kitzmiller versus Dover, Judge Jones, a conservative Republican, in his ruling declared that "ID is not science." He also stated that Intelligent Design "violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation," depends on "flawed and illogical" arguments, and that their attempts to cast doubts on evolution "have been refuted by the scientific community" (qtd. in 7). In addition, ID has been criticized by religious figures. Reverend George Coyne, the Vatican's chief astronomer, denounced ID, saying that it "isn't science, even though it pretends to be." He insisted that if ID is to be included in school instruction that it not be taught in science courses, but in religion or history courses (qtd. in 13). The theory of evolution and Intelligent Design are clearly two unequal ideas, in terms of science seeing that ID is not science, so to teach ID as a competing idea on the same level as evolution is a great disservice to students.

In addition to not being legitimate science, Intelligent Design violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Though most ID defenders deny that they are seeking to reintroduce creationism into science classrooms, they begin their public demonstrations with a Christian prayer and mention God as the intelligent designer when other designers such as aliens are drawn to attention (5). In the Dover trial, Judge Jones found it "ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy" (qtd. in 7). If ID were truly about science then instead of trying to influence politicians and the people, the supporters would conduct research and experiments on their idea, but they do not. The Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC), the most prominent Intelligent Design organization, strives for "nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies" as said in an early duty announcement. Their strategy in doing so and the CRSC members are referred to as the Wedge by Phillip E. Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial. The Wedge is parallel to a wedge that splits a log, implying that ID wishes to free science from the shackles of "atheistic naturalism" by inserting their beliefs into science. Instead of researching and publishing data in peer-reviewed magazines, they concentrate on public relations to gain approval (6). Essentially, the Intelligent Design arguments, though vaguely disguised as science, are identical to the creationists' arguments because both primarily attempt to expose flaws in natural selection as opposed to delivering definite evidence for their opinion (5).

Finally, the Intelligent Design effort inaccurately portrays the theory of evolution as a concept focused on the origin of life. This is untrue because the theory's main concern is with the changes in life after its beginning, so there is no actual dispute between evolution and ID, since ID involves life's origins (10). Nevertheless, the Intelligent Design Movement wants their idea to be taught as an alternative to evolution because they feel threatened by the fact that religion seems to be excluded from science. However, this is false, since evolution does not deny the existence of an intelligent designer, and therefore the two ideas do not need to be involved in an automatic conflict. Even so, Jonathan Wells, who supports the teaching of ID, states, "Alongside Darwin's argument against design, students should also be taught that design remains a possibility." This statement reveals the misunderstanding of the theory of evolution by the ID movement because Darwin's theory wages no argument against design. Although science does omit religious explanations, it should not be interpreted as an attack on faith because science does not try to explain why the world is, but how the world works. Science leaves such speculations to philosophy (5). As Robert T. Pennock says, "One may, of course, retain religious faith in a designer who transcends natural processes, but there is no way to dust for his fingerprints." In 1996, Pope John Paul II announced there was no central conflict involving the belief in evolution and Catholicism, which does indeed agree with Pennock's view. (qtd. in 11). Intelligent Design draws media attention to their cause by creating a fictitious controversy on the basis of confusing people about evolution.

In conclusion, Intelligent Design has a religious foundation and should never be taught as science. Until there is serious scientific evidence contradicting the theory of evolution, no alternatives to the theory should be presented in a science lesson.

References:
1. Adams, William Lee. "Other Schools of Thought." Newsweek 28 Nov. 2005: 57.
2. Behe, Michael J. "The Challenge of Irreducible Complexity." ActionBioscience.org . April 2002. American Institute of Biological Sciences. 6 April 2006. (http://www.actionbi oscience.org/evoluti on/nhmag.html).
3. Biever, Celeste. "Astrology is scientific theory, courtroom told." NewScientist.com. 19 Oct. 2005. New Scientist. 23 April 2006. (http://www.newscien tist.com/home.ns;jse ssionid=ALBPMLNDADKD ).
4. Braun, Eric, Ed. Creationism Versus Evolution. Farmington Hills: Greenhaven Press, 2005, pp. 9, 56.
5. Carroll, Robert Todd. "Intelligent Design." The Skeptic's Dictionary. 20 March 2006. 6 April 2006. (http://www.skepdic. com/intelligentdesig n.html).
6. Forrest, Barbara. "The Newest Evolution of Creationism." ActionBioscience.org . April 2002. American Institute of Biological Sciences. 6 April 2006. (http://www.actionbi oscience.org/evoluti on/nhmag.html).
7. "Judge rules against intelligent design.'" MSNBC.com. 20 Dec. 2005. The Associated Press. 16 April 2006. (http://www.msnbc.ms n.com/id/10545387/).
8. Merchant, Nomaan, and Anna Prior. "Schools not evolving to include intelligent design." dailynorthwestern.co m. 28 Feb. 2006. The Daily Northwestern. 15 April 2006. (http://www.dailynor thwestern.com/vnews/ display.v/ART/2006/0 2/28/4403e67b40d09).
9. Miller, Kenneth R. "The Flaw in the Mousetrap." ActionBioscience.org . April 2002. American Institute of Biological Sciences. 6 April 2006. (http://www.actionbi oscience.org/evoluti on/nhmag.html).
10. "Misconception: Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.'" Understanding Evolution for Teachers. University of California Museum of Paleontology. 23 April 2006. (http://evolution.be rkeley.edu/evosite/m isconceps/IAoriginth eory.shtml).
11. "Never a Dull Moment." Newsweek. 28 Nov. 2005: 53
12. Pennock, Robert T. "Mystery Science Theater." ActionBioscience.org . April 2002. American Institute of Biological Sciences. 6 April 2006. (http://www.actionbi oscience.org/evoluti on/nhmag.html).
13. Sherriff, Lucy. "Intelligent design 'not science', says Vatican astronomer." The Register. 21 Nov. 2005. Situation Publishing. 24 April 2006. (http://www.theregis ter.co.uk/2005/11/21 /id_vatican_not_scie nce/).
14. Wells, Jonathan. "Elusive Icons of Evolution." ActionBioscience.org . April 2002. American Institute of Biological Sciences. 6 April 2006. (http://www.actionbi oscience.org/evoluti on/nhmag.html).

Learn more about this author, Xiaoqian Lim.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.