sign in sign up
<<
Home , Creation science, Intelligent design, Intelligent designer, Irreducible complexity, Only a Theory, Scopes Trial

Intelligent

Intelligent Design: Should We Teach It? Sarah-Kate Oliver Department of ; College of Arts and Abilene Christian University

Belief about the origins of the and mankind is an important aspect of most world . While many ‘progressive’ Christians view the Genesis accounts of creation as mythical or allegorical, some ‘fundamentalist’ Christians claim it is a literal and historical account of the origins of life. The , on the other hand, views Darwin’s Theory of as the definitive explanation of the origin of all species on Earth including . As has continued to line up behind evolution, it has been integrated into the public school curriculum. The question examined by this paper is: should the ‘plain sense’ or literal hermeneutic of the Genesis accounts of creation (commonly referred to as ‘’ or, more recently, ‘’), be taught in public schools as an alternative explanation for the evolutionary understanding of the origins of life?

Opinions about the orthodox way in threatens their beliefs and the which to read and interpret Genesis 1-3 have notion of humans having been created “in been varied and dynamic throughout the ’s image”. Simply put, many Christians history of the Christian . Many early have come to view Darwin’s theory of Christians such as St. Augustine and St. evolution as inconsistent with some of the did not interpret the central tenets of their faith. Consequently, Genesis account of creation literally, but the teaching in public schools of evolution rather as an allegory. More recently, as the scientific explanation for all species particularly since the Protestant reformation, on earth including humans has been, and many Christians read the creation account in remains, very threatening and problematic Genesis as the historical record of the for some believers. earth’s origin. Viewed in this way, a reading of the Genesis stories points the reader Creationism in Public Schools: A Brief toward the conclusion that all the creatures Legal History inhabiting the Earth were spoken into The integration of creationism into creation by God over the course of a few the biology curriculum of public schools has days. This conclusion is reinforced in John’s been a highly contested issue within the gospel through the “Logos” account which court system since the famous states “Through him all things were made; of the . The legal question hinges on without him nothing was made that has been the of the First made” (John 1:2 New International Amendment of the Version). For many Christians, a sense of Constitution. The Establishment clause is in spiritual identity and comfort is found in the place to protect the right of religious notion that they were specifically created by freedom, and does so by preventing the God. To them, the idea that modern life government from establishing a national forms evolved through a series of seemingly or passing legislation that favors random, incremental and

Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2016-Spring 2017 |Volume 4 1

Intelligent Design one religion to another.1 Since the 1920s, creation-science because it had been held in proponents of creationism have demanded federal courts that this was religious that it be included as a part of the required advocacy. Webster argued that prohibiting educational standards in almost every state. him from teaching creation-science was a Among some of the most notable cases violation of his first amendment right. The dealing with the teaching of “Creation court held that the school district had the Science,” are McLean v. Board of responsibility to ensure that the Education, Webster v. New Lennox School Establishment Clause was not violated, and District, and Kitzmiller et. al. v. Dover. that Webster’s rights had not been violated.3 In 1981, McLean v Arkansas Board The 2005 case of Kitzmiller v. Dover of Education challenged the constitutional Area School District in Pennsylvania is legitimacy of Act 590, or the “Balanced perhaps the most notable case in recent Treatment for Creation-Science and years. Members of the Board of the Dover Evolution-Science Act.” This act was put in Area School District took issue with the place to mandate that schools give equal Darwinian theory of evolution explained in treatment to creation-science and evolution- the district’s biology textbook. The Board science. Upon examination of the definitions made the decision to require that biology of creation-science and evolution-science teachers read a disclaimer that discounted used within Act 590, the Court determined the esteem with which Darwin’s theory of that the definition of creation-science was evolution is held within scientific “unquestionably religious.” This decision communities and presented creationism as was based on the overwhelming similarity of an alternative theory for the origins of the to the creation story told in universe. When parents of students within the first 11 chapters of Genesis. The Court the Dover Area School District caught word found that the religious motives behind the of this disclaimer, they filed a suit against Act put it in conflict with the Establishment the district claiming that the Board had Clause, and ultimately rejected the Act as violated the constitution by issuing this unconstitutional.2 mandate. The Court concluded that the The case of Webster v. New Lennox Board did, in , violate the Establishment School District in 1990 dealt with confusion Clause by requiring teachers to read the surrounding whether or not the District disclaimer.4 prohibiting the teaching of “creation- These cases do not provide a science” was a violation of a teacher’s First comprehensive history of the legal battle Amendment right to . Mr. between evolutionary theory and Webster, a history teacher in the New creationism; however, they provide insight Lennox School District, was investigated into the overwhelming number of cases that because of complaints that his teaching have been ongoing for close to a century methods violated the Establishment Clause now. Time and again, courts have upheld when he taught “creation-science” theory in that the teaching of creationism as science in order to refute a statement in the textbook a public school classroom violates the that the world is over four billion years old. Establishment clause due to the conclusion The superintendent of the school district that it is not science, but rather a religious dictated that Mr. Webster was not to teach teaching with evangelical motives behind it.

1 Establishment Clause Overview, 2011 3 U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 2 U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of 1990 Arkansas, 1982 4 U. S. Supreme Court, 2005 Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2016-Spring 2017 |Volume 4 2

Intelligent Design

Intelligent Design: The science classrooms as they are both Against this backdrop of repeated “theories.” While it is a common legislative and legal failures, proponents of misconception among the general public that creationism in recent years have effectively a and a hypothesis are one “re-branded” their with a new name: in the same, within the scientific community Intelligent Design (ID). ID suggests that the there is a clear distinction between the two. best explanation for the origin of the A hypothesis is a testable explanation of an universe is that it was designed by an observed phenomenon. A scientific theory intelligent entity.5 As proposed by its begins as a hypothesis and is only accepted advocates, ID is a retelling of two Biblical once it has been repeatedly tested and creation stories using scientific terminology supported by empirical data.8 Evolution is in an effort to make it acceptable for confirmed by data from numerous branches teaching in public schools.6 While most of biology including paleontology, genetics, advocates for Intelligent Design will not developmental biology, and molecular assign an identity to the “Intelligent biology.9 In contrast, ID offers little to no ,” the parallels between the creation empirical data in support of its claims. On story in Genesis and ID Theory are striking, the contrary, some of ID’s fundamental and it is not a far leap to conclude that the assumptions have been challenged by recent “” proponents of the research. movement have in mind is the God of the Behe offers “scientific” evidence of Christian . The refusal to identify the ID in the form of . In designer is merely an attempt to further Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box irreducible disguise this branch of creationism. complexity is defined as “a single system With the integration of evolutionary composed of several well-matched, theory into the curriculum of biology interacting parts that contribute to the basic classrooms around the country, evangelicals function, wherein the removal of any one of were in need of a theory that was compatible the parts causes the system to effectively with a literal interpretation of Genesis but cease the system to effectively cease was distanced enough from Christianity to functioning.”10 In other words, because a stand a fighting chance in the courtroom. ID system requires all components to serve a is the product of this requirement. function it cannot be reduced to a more Proponents of this movement desire its simple form. Behe elaborates on this inclusion into the biology curriculum not concept of irreducible complexity when he because it is a scientific explanation for the states that “[a]n irreducibly complex system origin of life, but because of an evangelical cannot be produced directly (that is, by agenda. Due to these biblical roots, ID is continuously improving the initial function, inherently theistic.7 which continues to work by the same mechanisms) by slight, successive Intelligent Design: The Science modifications of a precursor system, because Setting aside for a moment it’s any precursor to an irreducibly complex theistic roots, proponents of ID claim that it system that is missing a part is by definition deserves equal standing with evolution in

5 Woodill 2015, 1 8 National Academy of Sciences 1999, 2 6 ibid, 2 9 ibid, 3 7 Woodill 2015, 2 10 Behe 2006, 39

Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2016-Spring 2017 |Volume 4 3

Intelligent Design nonfunctional.”11 The explanation that is because of the following quote from offered by ID to account for these Darwin’s Origin of Species: “To suppose irreducibly complex systems is the that the with all its inimitable intelligent designer. This idea of irreducible contrivances for adjusting the focus to complexity has famously been applied to the different distances, for admitting different mousetrap, eyeball, and the bacterial amounts of light, and for the correction of in an attempt to assert ID as a spherical and chromatic aberration, could scientific theory. have been formed by , Irreducible complexity is applied to seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest the five-part mousetrap in order to provide degree.”14 the general public with an everyday example However; this is a small excerpt of the concept. The five-part mousetrap from an over 150-year old passage in which consists of the base, catch, hammer, spring, Darwin admitted that natural selection may and holding bar. The argument of be difficult to accept at first, much like it irreducible complexity relies on the notion was initially difficult to accept that the Earth that each of these components must be revolves around the sun; but he followed his present and operational in order for the statement with the assertion that one’s system to properly function (i.e. for a mouse inability to imagine the precise pathway by to be caught).12 Irreducible complexity also which a mammalian eye evolved does not asserts that components of an irreducibly discredit natural selection. While the complex system are rendered nonfunctional complete pathway of evolution of the outside of their system. Miller illustrates mammalian eye had not yet been how this claim presents a flaw in the discovered, we know today that there are application of irreducible complexity to the several seemingly more primitive versions mousetrap when he proposes that with the of the eye found in ; all of these are removal of the catch and the holding bar, the likely incremental steps taken in the trap can easily be reconfigured into a three- production of the complex eye seen in part spitball launcher.13 Miller has also used mammals today. Among these proposed the idea that a mousetrap can be evolutionary steps are the green algae reconfigured to function as a tie clip to containing light sensitive patches used for discredit the claim of irreducible detecting light for photosynthesis, flatworms complexity. containing a pit of light-sensitive cells to The mammalian eye is a biological detect the shadow of predators, snails with system that is often used by proponents of blurry vision that is utilized in the search for ID to claim legitimacy of irreducible food, and a wide variety of vertebrates with complexity as scientific evidence. The clear vision used for a myriad of purposes.15 eyeball is considered irreducibly complex by The argument that the mammalian the proponents of ID because they thought eyeball must be considered irreducibly natural selection had not yet provided a complex due to a lack of evolutionary comprehensive explanation for the evolution explanation has also been used as of this . This argument justification for an argument of the “God of quickly gained traction in the ID community the gaps” variety. As described by Malcolm

11 Behe 2006, 39 14 Darwin 1979, 217 12 Miller 2008 15 Elissor 2016 13 ibid

Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2016-Spring 2017 |Volume 4 4

Intelligent Design

Jeeves and R. J. Berry, an argument that This argument for the intelligent favors the “” is one that design of the flagellum began to disintegrate explains away gaps of knowledge in when microbiologists found that the proteins scientific disciplines as the work of a higher comprising the flagella show to theistic being that cannot be understood. functional proteins elsewhere in the , Jeeves and Barry caution against making particularly the Type III Secretory System such arguments as they could be detrimental (TTSS). The TTSS facilitates the pumping to one’s personal faith. What happens once of proteins from a bacterial cell into a host. these gaps of knowledge are filled? The The proteins that comprise the base of the foundation on which one has built belief TTSS are so similar structurally that they are about how their God interacts with systems nearly identical. The discovery of these in the universe is suddenly explained by structural similarities between the TTSS and physical phenomenon, and the individual is the bacterial flagellum negate the previously left with a fractured faith.16 Therefore, stated argument for the intelligent design of proponents of the Intelligent Design the flagella. The variety of functions movement should exert caution when demonstrated by the proteins found in the asserting that mammalian eyeballs are flagella make it impossible for them to be a irreducibly complex because the product of ID, but rather suggest that it is a evolutionary explanation has not yet been product of natural selection.20 discovered. Each case presented above for Historically, the ID movement’s irreducible complexity has been refuted with most compelling evidence for irreducible a reasonable and supported explanation complexity has been the bacterial flagellum. through the of natural selection. This It has been so widely used to further the ID leaves ID with no measurable data to position that the flagellum has been referred support itself as a scientific theory, defined to as the poster child of ID. The flagellum is earlier as a hypothesis that has been tested a highly complex structure comprised of several times over and supported with proteins that are used by bacteria for empirical data. One might attempt, then, to motility. Essentially, the flagellum is a assert that ID should be considered a microscopic metaphorical “motor” that hypothesis that is simply still under review. whips a tail which propels the bacterial cell However; with no conceivable way to forward. It has been argued that this cell measure the degree to which a structure or structure is irreducibly complex because in an organism has been “designed,” this the absence of any one protein, the system hypothesis will never be recognized as a ceases to function.17 Additionally, the lack scientific theory, and will, in turn, never of knowledge about the evolution of the carry as much weight as Darwin’s theory of flagella lends itself to Behe’s idea that evolution by natural selection, which has natural selection is only capable of affecting achieved the status of scientific theory. systems that are pre-existent in nature.18 In other words, because there is no knowledge Conclusion of a more primitive version of a flagellum, it In examining the central question of must have been intelligently designed.19 this paper, it is instructive to consider the

16 Jeeves and Berry 1998 19 Miller 2008 17 Miller 2008 20 ibid. 18 Behe 2002, 74

Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2016-Spring 2017 |Volume 4 5

Intelligent Design purpose of public schools. Public schools reliable. In reviewing the about are governmental entities, funded by tax Intelligent Design, I find that it fails both of dollars, the aim of which is to provide these tests. First, its similarity to the creation quality education to all students. As a accounts in the Bible reveal its evangelical governmental entity, public schools must motives; it is nothing more than a new observe the Establishment Clause of the framework for describing Creationism. Constitution and not engage in the Second, it does not hold up to scientific evangelization of their students to any scrutiny and has been widely discredited; it particular religion. Additionally, in order to is bad science. For these reasons, I believe provide quality education, public schools that ID should not be taught in public school have a responsibility to teach their students science classrooms. information that is considered sound and

Literature Cited Behe, Michael J. (2006). Darwin's black box: The biochemical challenge to evolution. New York :, Behe, Michael J., (2002). The Challenge of Irreducible Complexity. Natural History, 74. Darwin, C. (1979). The Origin of Species. New York, NY: Gramercy Books. Elissor. (2016). Irreducible complexity? - explained [Video file]. Retrieved October 11, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ9uMb8GqNY Establishment Clause Overview. (2011). First Amendment Center. Retrieved November 02, 2016, from http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/establishment-clause Jeeves, M. A., & Berry, R. J. (1998). Science, life, and Christian belief: A survey of contemporary issues. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. Miller, K. R. (2008). : Evolution and the battle for America's . New York: Viking Penguin. National Academy of Sciences. (1999). Science and creationism: A view from the National Academy of Sciences. , DC: National Academy Press. U. S. Supreme Court. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005) Retrieved September 25, 2016, from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education. 529 F. Supp 1255, 1258-1264 (1982) Retrieved November 02, 2016, from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Webster v. New Lennox School District. 917 F.2d 1004 (1990) Retrieved November, 02, 2016, from https://ncse.com/creationism/legal/webster-v-new-lenox Woodill, S. (2015). The Christian Core of Intelligent Design. Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, 50(2), 271-286. doi:10.1111/zygo.12171

Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2016-Spring 2017 |Volume 4 6