![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
annissamazingIn November 2004, the Dover, Pennsylvania school board voted to require science teachers to read the following statement:
When the resolution passed, the three dissenting members of the school board resigned in protest. Because the district's science teachers refused to read the statement, a school administrator read the statement for each ninth grade biology class. The school board's decision to require this statement be read in the district's science classes led to a lawsuit filed by eleven parents of students in the school district. Judge John E. Jones III, a conservative Republican who had been appointed by George W. Bush, ruled that intelligent design could not be taught in science class in public schools because intelligent design is a religious idea and violated the separation of church and state. This was the correct decision and one that should continue to be upheld.
But what is intelligent design and why shouldn't it be taught in biology as a legitimate alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution? According to the Discovery Institute, a research organization headquartered in Seattle, Washington, intelligent design is a theory that states that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." The idea of intelligent design actually goes back to as early as the thirteenth century. Thomas Aquinas said, "Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer" (Kitzmiller 24). This syllogism remains the basis for intelligent design.
The debate surrounding intelligent design is whether it is a religious belief or a scientific theory. Proponents of intelligent design state emphatically that it is not the same as creationism, nor is the theory religious, because intelligent design does not depend on biblical references or timelines and does not state who or what the intelligent designer is. However, the idea that intelligent design is not a religious idea is laughable. Thomas Aquinas was quite clear that the designer in his syllogism was God, and every proponent of intelligent design who spoke at the Kitzmiller trial admitted that they personally believe that the designer is the Christian God. Even the textbook, Of Pandas and People, is clearly religious despite its lack of any mention of the Bible or God.
The Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE), a Christian non-profit organization, financed the production of Pandas, the most widely known and used textbook supporting intelligent design. In 1981, the FTE put out an ad seeking authors to write a textbook that would be "sensitively written to present both evolution and creation" (Forrest). Early drafts of Pandas were written in 1983 under the title Creation Biology and included creationist language. After the 1987 Supreme Court ruling that creation could not be taught in schools, the creationist language in the drafts of the book, which had been retitled Biology and Creation, then Biology and Origin, had been changed. The creationist language had been replaced with intelligent design terms. The changes had been hastily and poorly done. Where the writers had tried to replace the word "creationists" with "design proponents," the mashup "cdesign proponentsists" appears (Forrest). This was the most obvious evidence that intelligent design was a religious idea hiding behind a thin veneer of pseudo-science, but other evidence is easy to uncover.
William Buckingham, the chair of Dover's curriculum committee, told a Fox-TV affiliate, "It's okay to teach Darwin, but you have to balance it with something else such as creationism" (qtd. in Shermer 101). Buckingham and his church raised $850 to purchase copies of Pandas for the school. Buckingham was quoted in a local newspaper as saying, "Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross. Can't someone take a stand for him?" (qtd. in Shermer 104).
In spite of its clearly religious agenda, proponents of intelligent design insist that t is a legitimate scientific theory. Intelligent design depends on the idea of irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity is the idea that a system is so complex that it could only have been designed. According to the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center (IDEA), intelligent design follows the scientific method. Their website states:
However, irreducible complexity is a logical fallacy known as a false dilemma. It assumes that there are only two possibilities to explain how life exists today: evolution or intelligent design. It is also a "bait-and-switch" fallacy. Every time a system that was thought to be irreducibly complex is reduced to simpler systems, the standard of irreducible complexity changes to the simpler standard (Shermer 67). Proponents of intelligent design use scientific-sounding language in order to make it sound like legitimate science. Scientific theories stand on their own merits. If the evidence cannot support a theory, the theory is disregarded. "There are few theories in science that are more robust than the theory of evolution" (Shermer xx).
Meanwhile, proponents of intelligent design claim that evolution is not a viable scientific theory because it cannot be tested. This is blatantly false, as the theory of evolution is constantly tested by many scientists, but breakthroughs are routinely ignored or refuted by creationists. For example, James Bardwell, a biologist from the University of Michigan, disabled a strain of E. coli, making it unable to move. When the bacterium's food supply ran out, it had to either restore its ability to move or starve to death. One of the mutant bacteria was able to restore motor function and replicate. Those who support intelligent design would argue that the researcher was acting as the designer in this case, when it would be more accurate to describe him as the force of natural selection (Shermer 76-77). The bacteria that was able to evolve was the strain that got to reproduce.
Creationists also point to a lack of fossil evidence as proof that Darwin's theory is wrong. According to Michael Shermer, we have a wealth of fossil evidence at our disposal.
Many of the arguments held by proponents of intelligent design against evolution are based on misinformation or ignorance. One argument that is often quoted asks, "If man came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" This arises from a misunderstanding of evolution which does not state that man evolved from monkeys, but that man and apes evolved from a common ancestor.
A sticking point with proponents of intelligent design seems to be the definitions of the words "fact" and "theory." In 2004, the state of Georgia required all public schools to put a sticker on their science textbooks which read, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." Both this statement and the statement written by the Dover Area School Board makes this distinction between fact and theory. This is deliberately misleading. A scientific theory is not merely a guess. It is a generalization, based on observation, and testing, that explains a phenomenon. Proponents of intelligent design seem to take issue only with the theory of evolution. They accept gladly many other scientific theories such as "heliocentrism, gravity, continental drift and plate tectonics, the germ theory of disease, the genetic basis of heredity, and many others" (Shermer 129). In the case of evolution, scientists have taken "independent sets of data from geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, herpetology, entomology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, genetics and population genetics, and many other sciences [to] point to the conclusion that life evolved" (Shermer 13). The theory of evolution uses established facts to explain how life exists the way it does today.
Intelligent design is a lazy theory that scientists do not find helpful when studying biological systems. Even scientists who practice Christianity prefer to use the scientific method over intelligent design. Lee Ann Chaney, a professor at Whitworth College, says,
Professor Chaney is hardly the only scientist of the Christian faith who does not discount Darwin's theory of evolution. Creationists fear that understanding Darwin's theory will undermine people's faith in God. This fear is based on the faulty belief that evolution implies that there is no god, but this fear is unfounded. According to Shermer, "A 1996 survey found that 39 percent of American scientists profess belief in God, and a 1997 poll found that 99 percent of American scientists accept the theory of evolution" (Shermer 126). Even Pope John Paul II acknowledged that evolution happened and that the theory was not a threat to religion (Shermer 128).
In reality, the creationism/intelligent design debate isn't about science; it's about culture. Phillip Johnson, a retired UC Berkley law professor, co-founder of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, and advocate for intelligent design, said, "This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science... It's about religion and philosophy" (qtd. from Shermer 109). The Discover Institute labels itself secular, but its internal documents are very clear on who they believe the designer to be and what the ultimate agenda of the organization is. The "Wedge Document" states
The claim that the Discovery Institute is secular is disingenuous at best.
The Discovery Institute has devised a strategy to get intelligent design taught in classrooms throughout the country. The so-called "Wedge Strategy" culminates in possible legal action "in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula" (Wedge 15). The goal of the people who support the teaching of intelligent design in biology class seems to be establishing the idea of a divine creator as an unquestionable, proven fact. This may be more harmful than helpful in turning people towards a religious lifestyle. For example, the design of the human eye wouldn't under any other circumstances be called "intelligent." "It is built upside down and backwards... for optimal vision, why would an intelligent designer have built an eye upside down and backwards?" (Shermer 17). Intelligent design reduces God to a watchmaker, using only what He has on hand to create existence. In order for God to be omniscient and omnipotent, He needs to exist outside the constraints of time and space. Meanwhile, the scientific community, because intelligent design is useless to them, essentially ignores it (Shermer xviii).
When forcing public schools to adopt intelligent design in biology class failed, the Discovery Institute fell back on the "Teach the Controversy" campaign. This was the idea that science teachers could present both intelligent design and evolution in class and teach why there was a debate over the teaching of both. However, this was also struck down because "Teach the Controversy" is also not science.
Intelligent design proponents may have been better served trying to get creationism taught in other classes such as debate, philosophy, or comparative religion. This would introduce their idea to a larger audience, in the proper forum, without having to resort to "Teach the Controversy" in science class. For anyone interested in a theological viewpoint of how life exists, it's not a far leap to assume that life was created by an omniscient, omnipotent being. By pushing the idea of intelligent design as science, proponents of intelligent design hurt science and hurt religion.
Works Cited:
"FAQ: Does intelligent Design Theory Implement the Scientific Method?" Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center. Web. Mar. 27, 2011
Forrest, Barbara. "My Role in Kitzmiller vs. Dover." National Center for Science Education. Jan. - Apr. 2006. Web. Mar. 26, 2011
Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District. PAMD. 139. U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. 2005. Web. Apr. 1, 2011
Shermer, Michael. Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design. New York. Henry Holt. 2006. Print.
"The 'Wedge Document': 'So What?'" The Discovery Institute. Web. Apr. 3, 2011.
"What is Intelligent Design?" The Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture. Web. Mar. 26, 2011.
The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.
As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments. (Kitzmiller 1-2)
When the resolution passed, the three dissenting members of the school board resigned in protest. Because the district's science teachers refused to read the statement, a school administrator read the statement for each ninth grade biology class. The school board's decision to require this statement be read in the district's science classes led to a lawsuit filed by eleven parents of students in the school district. Judge John E. Jones III, a conservative Republican who had been appointed by George W. Bush, ruled that intelligent design could not be taught in science class in public schools because intelligent design is a religious idea and violated the separation of church and state. This was the correct decision and one that should continue to be upheld.
But what is intelligent design and why shouldn't it be taught in biology as a legitimate alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution? According to the Discovery Institute, a research organization headquartered in Seattle, Washington, intelligent design is a theory that states that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." The idea of intelligent design actually goes back to as early as the thirteenth century. Thomas Aquinas said, "Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer" (Kitzmiller 24). This syllogism remains the basis for intelligent design.
The debate surrounding intelligent design is whether it is a religious belief or a scientific theory. Proponents of intelligent design state emphatically that it is not the same as creationism, nor is the theory religious, because intelligent design does not depend on biblical references or timelines and does not state who or what the intelligent designer is. However, the idea that intelligent design is not a religious idea is laughable. Thomas Aquinas was quite clear that the designer in his syllogism was God, and every proponent of intelligent design who spoke at the Kitzmiller trial admitted that they personally believe that the designer is the Christian God. Even the textbook, Of Pandas and People, is clearly religious despite its lack of any mention of the Bible or God.
The Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE), a Christian non-profit organization, financed the production of Pandas, the most widely known and used textbook supporting intelligent design. In 1981, the FTE put out an ad seeking authors to write a textbook that would be "sensitively written to present both evolution and creation" (Forrest). Early drafts of Pandas were written in 1983 under the title Creation Biology and included creationist language. After the 1987 Supreme Court ruling that creation could not be taught in schools, the creationist language in the drafts of the book, which had been retitled Biology and Creation, then Biology and Origin, had been changed. The creationist language had been replaced with intelligent design terms. The changes had been hastily and poorly done. Where the writers had tried to replace the word "creationists" with "design proponents," the mashup "cdesign proponentsists" appears (Forrest). This was the most obvious evidence that intelligent design was a religious idea hiding behind a thin veneer of pseudo-science, but other evidence is easy to uncover.
William Buckingham, the chair of Dover's curriculum committee, told a Fox-TV affiliate, "It's okay to teach Darwin, but you have to balance it with something else such as creationism" (qtd. in Shermer 101). Buckingham and his church raised $850 to purchase copies of Pandas for the school. Buckingham was quoted in a local newspaper as saying, "Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross. Can't someone take a stand for him?" (qtd. in Shermer 104).
In spite of its clearly religious agenda, proponents of intelligent design insist that t is a legitimate scientific theory. Intelligent design depends on the idea of irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity is the idea that a system is so complex that it could only have been designed. According to the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center (IDEA), intelligent design follows the scientific method. Their website states:
Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if objects were designed, they will contain CSI. They then seek to find CSI. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity (IC). ID researchers can then experimentally reverse-engineer biological structures to see if they are IC. If they find them, they can conclude design.
However, irreducible complexity is a logical fallacy known as a false dilemma. It assumes that there are only two possibilities to explain how life exists today: evolution or intelligent design. It is also a "bait-and-switch" fallacy. Every time a system that was thought to be irreducibly complex is reduced to simpler systems, the standard of irreducible complexity changes to the simpler standard (Shermer 67). Proponents of intelligent design use scientific-sounding language in order to make it sound like legitimate science. Scientific theories stand on their own merits. If the evidence cannot support a theory, the theory is disregarded. "There are few theories in science that are more robust than the theory of evolution" (Shermer xx).
Meanwhile, proponents of intelligent design claim that evolution is not a viable scientific theory because it cannot be tested. This is blatantly false, as the theory of evolution is constantly tested by many scientists, but breakthroughs are routinely ignored or refuted by creationists. For example, James Bardwell, a biologist from the University of Michigan, disabled a strain of E. coli, making it unable to move. When the bacterium's food supply ran out, it had to either restore its ability to move or starve to death. One of the mutant bacteria was able to restore motor function and replicate. Those who support intelligent design would argue that the researcher was acting as the designer in this case, when it would be more accurate to describe him as the force of natural selection (Shermer 76-77). The bacteria that was able to evolve was the strain that got to reproduce.
Creationists also point to a lack of fossil evidence as proof that Darwin's theory is wrong. According to Michael Shermer, we have a wealth of fossil evidence at our disposal.
But evolution is not proved through a single fossil. It is proved through a convergence of fossils, along with a convergence of genetic comparisons between species, and a convergence of anatomical and physiological comparisons between species, and many other lines of inquiry. (Shermer 13)
Many of the arguments held by proponents of intelligent design against evolution are based on misinformation or ignorance. One argument that is often quoted asks, "If man came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" This arises from a misunderstanding of evolution which does not state that man evolved from monkeys, but that man and apes evolved from a common ancestor.
A sticking point with proponents of intelligent design seems to be the definitions of the words "fact" and "theory." In 2004, the state of Georgia required all public schools to put a sticker on their science textbooks which read, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." Both this statement and the statement written by the Dover Area School Board makes this distinction between fact and theory. This is deliberately misleading. A scientific theory is not merely a guess. It is a generalization, based on observation, and testing, that explains a phenomenon. Proponents of intelligent design seem to take issue only with the theory of evolution. They accept gladly many other scientific theories such as "heliocentrism, gravity, continental drift and plate tectonics, the germ theory of disease, the genetic basis of heredity, and many others" (Shermer 129). In the case of evolution, scientists have taken "independent sets of data from geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, herpetology, entomology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, genetics and population genetics, and many other sciences [to] point to the conclusion that life evolved" (Shermer 13). The theory of evolution uses established facts to explain how life exists the way it does today.
Intelligent design is a lazy theory that scientists do not find helpful when studying biological systems. Even scientists who practice Christianity prefer to use the scientific method over intelligent design. Lee Ann Chaney, a professor at Whitworth College, says,
As a Christian, part of my belief system is that God is ultimately responsible. But as a biologist, I need to look at the evidence. Scientifically speaking, I don't think intelligent design is very helpful because it does not provide things that are refutable - there is no way in the world you can show it's not true. Drawing inferences about the deity does not seem to me to be the function of science because it's very subjective. (qtd. from Shermer 111)
Professor Chaney is hardly the only scientist of the Christian faith who does not discount Darwin's theory of evolution. Creationists fear that understanding Darwin's theory will undermine people's faith in God. This fear is based on the faulty belief that evolution implies that there is no god, but this fear is unfounded. According to Shermer, "A 1996 survey found that 39 percent of American scientists profess belief in God, and a 1997 poll found that 99 percent of American scientists accept the theory of evolution" (Shermer 126). Even Pope John Paul II acknowledged that evolution happened and that the theory was not a threat to religion (Shermer 128).
In reality, the creationism/intelligent design debate isn't about science; it's about culture. Phillip Johnson, a retired UC Berkley law professor, co-founder of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, and advocate for intelligent design, said, "This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science... It's about religion and philosophy" (qtd. from Shermer 109). The Discover Institute labels itself secular, but its internal documents are very clear on who they believe the designer to be and what the ultimate agenda of the organization is. The "Wedge Document" states
The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built... Thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art... Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture [now named the Center for Science and Culture] seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. (Wedge 12-13)
The claim that the Discovery Institute is secular is disingenuous at best.
The Discovery Institute has devised a strategy to get intelligent design taught in classrooms throughout the country. The so-called "Wedge Strategy" culminates in possible legal action "in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula" (Wedge 15). The goal of the people who support the teaching of intelligent design in biology class seems to be establishing the idea of a divine creator as an unquestionable, proven fact. This may be more harmful than helpful in turning people towards a religious lifestyle. For example, the design of the human eye wouldn't under any other circumstances be called "intelligent." "It is built upside down and backwards... for optimal vision, why would an intelligent designer have built an eye upside down and backwards?" (Shermer 17). Intelligent design reduces God to a watchmaker, using only what He has on hand to create existence. In order for God to be omniscient and omnipotent, He needs to exist outside the constraints of time and space. Meanwhile, the scientific community, because intelligent design is useless to them, essentially ignores it (Shermer xviii).
When forcing public schools to adopt intelligent design in biology class failed, the Discovery Institute fell back on the "Teach the Controversy" campaign. This was the idea that science teachers could present both intelligent design and evolution in class and teach why there was a debate over the teaching of both. However, this was also struck down because "Teach the Controversy" is also not science.
Intelligent design proponents may have been better served trying to get creationism taught in other classes such as debate, philosophy, or comparative religion. This would introduce their idea to a larger audience, in the proper forum, without having to resort to "Teach the Controversy" in science class. For anyone interested in a theological viewpoint of how life exists, it's not a far leap to assume that life was created by an omniscient, omnipotent being. By pushing the idea of intelligent design as science, proponents of intelligent design hurt science and hurt religion.
Works Cited:
"FAQ: Does intelligent Design Theory Implement the Scientific Method?" Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center. Web. Mar. 27, 2011
Forrest, Barbara. "My Role in Kitzmiller vs. Dover." National Center for Science Education. Jan. - Apr. 2006. Web. Mar. 26, 2011
Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District. PAMD. 139. U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. 2005. Web. Apr. 1, 2011
Shermer, Michael. Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design. New York. Henry Holt. 2006. Print.
"The 'Wedge Document': 'So What?'" The Discovery Institute. Web. Apr. 3, 2011.
"What is Intelligent Design?" The Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture. Web. Mar. 26, 2011.