sign in sign up
<<
Home , Darwin on Trial, Irreducible complexity, Michael Polanyi Center, Only a Theory, Skeptical Inquirer, Watchmaker analogy

in Public Schools 1

Intelligent Design in Public Schools

Over the past decade, controversy regarding the scientific and philosophical foundation

of has risen. In response to this growing debate, a movement has emerged among

those exploring defensible alternatives to ’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 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 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 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 .

Behe is the Associate Professor of the Biochemistry Department of Biological at

Lehigh University in Pennsylvania (). 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 (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 is

known for his 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 ’ 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 , 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

and that the students should consider other alternatives to humankind’s existence (Anti-

Defamation League, 2004). In the year 2000, a Board of 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 or as an idea of how life began,

and never as a scientific fact.

Oklahomans for Excellence in (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 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 , and are not subject to scientific test and refutation, these beliefs should not be taught in the realm of natural sciences. (National Center for Science Education, 2005, paragraph 3)

Although Intelligent Design has gained a considerable amount of support, many scientists and theologians are still skeptical of it intrinsic worth (AAAS, 2002). The Board of Directors of the American Association for Advancement of Science has posted the following information and views on their website:

Whereas, ID proponents claim that contemporary evolutionary theory is incapable of explaining the origin of the diversity of living organisms; Whereas, to date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution; Whereas, the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims; Therefore Be It Resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called "Intelligent Design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science education; Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of "Intelligent Design theory" as a part of the science curricula of the public schools; Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that AAAS calls upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of "Intelligent Design theory" as subject matter for science education; Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS encourages its affiliated societies to endorse this resolution and to communicate their support to appropriate parties at the federal, state and local levels of the government. (AAAS, 2002, paragraph 3)

The AAAS and the National Association of Biology Teachers feel that this attempt of pushing Intelligent Design is just “an attempt by the Christian right to teach creationism – the

Intelligent Design in Public Schools 6

that created the world – in public schools under the guise of a theory that does not explicitly mention God” (AAAS, 2002). These organizations are also very quick to remind

Intelligent Design supporters that the United States Supreme Court banned teaching creationism in public schools in 1987.

The 1859 publication of Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species caused a major outcry of

controversy and disagreement (Milner & Maestro, 2002). Unlike Paley and other creationists,

Darwin searched for nature’s imperfections and change, ignoring the possibility of a kind-

hearted creator (What is Intelligent Design?, 1999). Perhaps this view came from his nine year

old daughter’s cruel and untimely death, destroying whatever belief that may have existed of a

moral universe. It wasn’t until sixty-six years later in 1925 when a teacher was prosecuted for

teaching evolution that the emotional level concerning evolution was again aroused amongst the

American public (Scopes “Monkey” Trial). Since the infamous Scopes “monkey trial” and the notorious indictment of scientific freedom, evolution has been accepted in standard biology curriculum across the country. Despite this acceptance many years ago, it is evident now that it is a controversy that has not yet been locked away.

Intelligent Design in Public Schools 7

Works Cited

American Association for the Advancement of Science Journal. (2002, October 18). AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory. Retrieved on October 6, 2005 from http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml

Anti-Defamation League. (2004). Religion in the Public Schools. Retrieved October 2, 2005 from http://www.adl.org/religion_ps_2004/evolution.asp

Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe. (n.d.) Do Biochemical Machines Show Intelligent Design? Retrieved October 2, 2005 from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Milner, R., & Maestro, V. (2002, April). Intelligent Design? Natural History. Retrieved October 2, 2005 from www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

National Center for Science Education. (2005, September) Defending the Teaching Evolution in the Public Schools. California education chief assails “Intelligent Design”. Retrieved October 15, 2005 from http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/CA/59_california_education_chief_ass.asp

Phillip E. Johnson. (n.d.) Retrieved October 2, 2005 from http://www.phillipejohnson.net/bio/

Reuters, J. (2005, September 23). New evolution spat in schools goes to court. Retrieved October 15, 2005 from http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/09/23/life.evolution.reut/index.html

Scopes “Monkey” Trial. (n.d.). Retrieved on October 14, 2005 from http://www.msu.edu/course/mc/112/1920s/Scopes/

Skeptical Inquirer (2002, November). A Presentation Without Arguments: Dembski Disappoints. Retrieved October 2, 2005 from http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-11/dembski.html

Intelligent Design in Public Schools 8

Teaching Evolution. (2005). Retrieved October 2, 2005 from http://www.biosurvey.ou.edu/dna/teachevolution.html

What is Intelligent Design? (1999). Retrieved on October 2, 2005 from http://www.arn.orgidfaq/What%20is%20inelligetn%20design.htm