Intelligent Design in Public Schools 1 Intelligent Design in Public Schools Over the past decade, controversy regarding the scientific and philosophical foundation of evolution has risen. In response to this growing debate, a movement has emerged among those exploring defensible alternatives to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. This movement especially embraces an idea known as Intelligent Design. The founders of Intelligent Design want their arguments opposing evolution heard and believe that students in public schools should be exposed to these ideas (Milner & Maestro, 2002). Most recently, attempts have been made to add evolution disclaimers to science textbooks. This paper will define Intelligent Design and introduce its founders, show how the teaching of evolution is currently implemented in today’s school systems, and discuss different views of this topic, including United States Supreme Court rulings. Although there are many supporters of Intelligent Design, three men stand out from the crowd as leaders and founders. Phillip E. Johnson has been noted as a strong leader of the Intelligent Design Movement, and he has made many successful efforts to make this movement known to many people across the country. An Illinois native, Johnson graduated from Harvard and the University of Chicago Law School, and then he became a professor at the Boalt School of Law at the University of California at Berkeley in 1967 (Phillip E. Johnson). Johnson published his first of many books on evolution in 1991 called Darwin on Trial (Phillip E. Johnson). He is now one of the primary critics of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and he has done much to help the Intelligent Design Movement and its ideas gain popularity and acceptance. Another well-known supporter in the Intelligent Design Movement is Michael Behe. Behe is the Associate Professor of the Biochemistry Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania (Irreducible Complexity). Behe is most widely known for Intelligent Design in Public Schools 2 two accomplishments. First, he is the author of Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution written in 1996 (Irreducible Complexity). The other significance of Behe’s work related to the Intelligent Design Movement is his concept of irreducible complexity, noting that organismal systems display this said characteristic at the molecular level (Irreducible Complexity). The third founder of Intelligent Design is William Dembski. Dembski is a philosopher, mathematician, and associate research professor in the Conceptual Foundations of Science at Baylor University (Skeptical Inquirer, 2002). He has taught at many institutions including Northwestern University, the University of Notre Dame, and the University of Dallas (Skeptical Inquirer, 2002). Dembski has done postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton University. Dembski is obviously a well-educated man that holds a B.A. in psychology, an M.S. in statistics, a Ph.D. in philosophy, a doctorate in mathematics, and a master of divinity degree from the Princeton Theological Seminary (Skeptical Inquirer, 2002). He is also currently the Director of the Michael Polanyi Center at Baylor University (Skeptical Inquirer, 2002). These founders want “Intelligent Design” to become “the dominant perspective in science” and to “permeate our religious, cultural, moral, and political life” (Skeptical Inquirer, 2002). Intelligent Design is a fairly new concept that opposes the theory of evolution. The actual topic, “Intelligent Design,” may be a relatively new term, but many argue that the idea that a cosmic designer exists started many years ago in 1802. English theologian William Paley is known for his watchmaker analogy from the early 1800’s (Milner & Maestro, 2002). Paley’s theory suggests: if you venture into a field and stumble upon a rock, you generally assume that it came to be in that place because it was a production of a natural process that occurred and that this said rock had probably been there for a significant amount of time. But do you likewise Intelligent Design in Public Schools 3 stumble upon a pocket watch lying in that same field and assume that it came to exist because it too is a product of a natural process? No. The complexity of the item suggests that there was a creator such as one of designing human intellect that must have constructed the watch. Supporters of Paley’s theory are known as “fundamentalist creationists” (Milner & Maestro, 2002). Not all Intelligent Design supporters are fundamental creationists; others are simply anti- evolutionists. The main two ideas of the anti-evolutionists are that they do agree that certain organisms have changed over time and they feel that our planet is much older than 6,000 years old. Anti-evolutionists completely disagree that evolution is the sole explanation of all species’ existence and complexity. Now that the basics of Intelligent Design have been established, the question is, “Is there a place for Intelligent Design in the classroom alongside evolution?” According to the Anti- Defamation League, only evolution should be taught because it is a proven scientific fact. Teaching anything other than evolution is viewed as teaching creationism, which may not be taught as science under any circumstances (Anti-Defamation League, 2004). In addition to teaching evolution, the United States Supreme Court has deemed it unconstitutional for any public school to restrict a science teacher’s right to teach evolution or to require a science teacher to include creationism in his or her curriculum (Anti-Defamation League, 2004). To date, at least 31 states are initiating steps to include teaching alternatives to evolution into their school’s curriculum (Reuters, 2005). As stated before, some activists have urged schools to require their science teachers to read a disclaimer to their students explaining that evolution is only a theory and that the students should consider other alternatives to humankind’s existence (Anti- Defamation League, 2004). In the year 2000, a Board of Education in the parish of Tangipahoa implemented a rule that required their teachers to read such a disclaimer. The court ruled against Intelligent Design in Public Schools 4 this particular case, Feller vs. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, and found that teaching evolution is “not intended to influence or dissuade the Biblical version of Creation or any other concept” (Anti-Defamation League, 2004). The United States Supreme Court has also stated that schools may not refuse to teach the theory of evolution to avoid offending those who embrace religious beliefs. The court says that evolution is a scientific and proven fact and that is the only type of information that has a place in a science class (Anti-Defamation League, 2004). Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court states that Creationism can still be discussed in the school systems, but only in classes on comparative religion or as an idea of how life began, and never as a scientific fact. Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education (OESE) have posted ten reasons to support teaching evolution in Oklahoma Schools on their website. According to the Oklahoma Biological Survey, a research unit of the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma, the three reasons that have sparked the most interest and response from others are as follows: First of all, the OESE states that there is no controversy over whether or not evolution has occurred. The scientific proof has been documented and can be reviewed. The National Academy of Sciences USA and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) have both issued official statements explicitly supporting the teaching of evolution (Teaching Evolution, 2005). Secondly, the OESE states that these “so-called alternatives to evolution” are not scientific. None of these alternatives, including Intelligent Design, have any scientific proof or testable data. Without scientific evidence, such ideas cannot be portrayed as science (Teaching Evolution, 2005). And finally, the third reason that OESE states schools should keep evolution in the school systems is that of the importance of evolutionary principles increasingly important in human health. These principles include development of antibiotic Intelligent Design in Public Schools 5 resistance, emerging diseases, and the human genome. Students in an agricultural area should be exposed to the facts that can improve crops and livestock growth. These are just a few of the reasons that the OESE believes that we should keep our science curriculum consistent with proven facts. California’s State Superintendent of Public Instruction is Jack O’Connell. He addressed the Los Angeles Natural History Museum on September 28, 2005, with the following statements: The goal of public education is for students to gain the knowledge and skills necessary for California's work force to be competitive in the global, information-based economy of the 21st Century. ... We also want to give students the tools to become critical thinkers and to be able to discuss and reflect on philosophical questions. But, the domain of the natural sciences is the natural world. Science is limited by its tools -- observable facts and testable hypothesis. Because religious beliefs are based on faith, and are not subject to scientific test and refutation, these beliefs should not be taught in the realm of natural sciences. (National