by Xiaoqian Lim

Created on: June 27, 2008

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

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next Page >>