Intelligent Design in the Classroom

[Gadreille]

Introduction

Intelligent design is an alternate ‘scientific’ perspective on the creation of the world. It is the faith-based alternative of evolution with natural selection, differing with creationism in that it doesn’t promote the Christian god, but rather an unnamed “neutral” divine being. Whether teaching this is the primary purpose of intelligent design, or if there is another religious agenda, is questionable. The issue of intelligent design revolves around the argument of whether or not it belongs alongside evolution in the science classroom.
The argument of teaching intelligent design in classrooms is a major issue among religious advocates, the scientific community, and parents that range in between these two extremes. Most of society falls under one of these three social groups. What is being taught to one’s children and community will always be severely important because we want our children to believe and understand what we believe and believe we understand.
The two opposing positions are whether or not intelligent design should be taught in the scientific classroom of public schools. Generally, it is the religious community that supports having intelligent design taught in public schools, while the scientific community does not support having intelligent design taught in public schools. However, there are individuals from each social group who break the norm and support the other argument, for individual reasons, and others who represent both social groups and choose one side or another.
The position to be supported in this paper is that of the general scientific community: intelligent design should not be taught in the science classroom of public schools. There are many reasons to support this position, both political and scientific. Most importantly, for this paper, is that intelligent design is a non-testable theory and therefore not scientific. Because it is not scientific, it should not be taught in a science classroom as an alternate theory to evolution.

Major Issues

There are two important political aspects of the debate, both encompassed under the first amendment. These are academic freedom and religious freedom. Teaching intelligent design violates religious freedom, and although the supporters of intelligent design protest this under the guise of academic freedom, it is questionable whether or not this situation applies.
Academic freedom is one main issue in the intelligent design debate, although sometimes it seems to be receiving less attention than it deserves. Academic freedom has to be supportive of both sides of the debate. Teachers have a professional responsibility to teach what they are hired to teach. Academic freedom is not the right to talk about whatever you want, whether or not it pertains to the subject matter.
Such was the case for Caroline Crocker, who grouped Darwin’s ideas of evolution with Nazi Germany and death camps. She stated she was fired for teaching her beliefs of intelligent design, but the school board states that she was a part time faculty member at the end of her term. “Teachers also have a responsibility to stick to subjects they were hired to teach…and intelligent design belonged in a religion class, not biology" (Vedantam, 2006. In: Johansen, 2007:44).
Conversely, the religious rights of the students and their parents have to be taken into account.

"Public schools are supported by the taxes derived from all citizens; therefore, in the public schools in the United States, the scientific evidences which support creation should be taught along with the scientific evidences which support evolution in a philosophically neutral manner devoid of references to any religious literature" (Gish, 1995: 39)

Does either of these views breach the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from interfering with freedom of religion, speech, assembly, or petition?

"The U.S. Constitution makes no mention of a Creator, but neither does it require that Americans be taught biology. This has left the evolution debate in public schools to balance on the First Amendment, which has two prescriptions for religion: government shall not establish it or curtail its free exercise.” (Witham, 2002:147)

The answer is yes. Introducing a religious belief into the public school violates the freedom of religion. You cannot introduce one religious version of creation without introducing all versions to uphold the first amendment. Creation cannot be taught neutrally, because there are too many different versions to tell. Teaching all versions of creation would be redundant in the science classroom.

State of Research

Currently federal courts are rejecting intelligent design and other studies of religion in public schools. The debate over religion has been characterized as a struggle between two groups, the values evangelicals vs. legal secularists, which do not represent reality (Johansen, 2007:46).
In fact, the people to whom the argument of intelligent design is for have the least amount of say toward the situation. The students, so incredibly important in this debate, have no control over what they are taught. Many don’t believe in evolution and put pressure on the teacher to avoid the subject. Some don’t believe in creationism but are never offered alternate knowledge to defend their beliefs.
The important difference is the former students can find information to support creationism outside of school – in their church. The latter students have no alternate mode of education unless they have special access to higher education. As a college student would know, higher education is pricey, privileged information that is not likely to be gained in high school.
An aforementioned issue that remains unresolved is “closet creationism”, where teachers neglect to teach or shed a biased light on evolution, either for personal agenda or to avoid conflict with parents and students.

“According to a survey of nearly 800 Indiana biology teachers published in 2002, 10 percent rejected evolutionary theory and 14 percent said they were “undecided” about it. More than 40 percent described their classroom approach to evolutionary theory as “avoidance,” or “briefly mentioned” (Johansen, 2007:42).

Although the state or federal court may order teachers to teach a certain subject, it may not be enforced. This is a serious problem because classroom conduct cannot be regulated. Our society relies on teachers to provide information to students, but depending on the society, the information may be skewed to fit the teacher’s beliefs.

[Gadreille]

Analysis

There are many controversies surrounding evolution. Many don’t believe in natural selection, denying the fossil record and minor evolution today as proof. They look at evolution as “just a theory”.
Some options to compromising between teaching evolution and intelligent design have consequences that can’t be ignored. These options include introducing intelligent design controversy in science classrooms, or introducing a new humanities course which covers the controversy as well as other origin studies.

“IDCs [intelligent design creationists] currently concentrate their efforts on attacking evolution. Under innocuous-sounding guises such as "academic freedom," "critical analysis of evolution," or "teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolution," IDCs attempt to encourage teachers to teach students wrongly that there is a "controversy" among scientists over whether evolution has occurred. So-called "evidence against evolution" or "weaknesses of evolution" consist of the same sorts of long-discredited arguments against evolution which have been a staple of creationism since the 1920s and earlier” (NCSE, 2008).

Teaching the controversy of intelligent design would be acceptable if taught correctly. The aforementioned situation would prevail in situations where teachers don’t believe and don’t want to teach evolution.
“Intelligent design theorists…call into question Darwinian evolution’s cardinal doctrine, natural selection” (Betty, 2005: 47). Rather, ID promotes the belief that an intelligent being is guiding the selection. According to believers of ID, biological creatures are too complex to be randomly created.

“Darwin’s mechanism fails to account for major features of evolution. The fossil record (especially where it is most complete) lacks the innumerable transitional forms that Darwin’s theory predicts; artificial breeding (no matter how intense or protracted) fails to produce the major modifications that his theory requires; and embryonic development (as revealed by modern comparative embryology) is radically different from Darwinian expectations” (Wells, 1998:71).

However, these arguments are not valid because natural selection is not the slow, transitional phenomenon that it was once believed to be. Evolution occurred in rapid bursts, along the periphery of a group of individuals. It would be more efficient to look at evolution in transitional features.

“Shifting the focus from transitional forms to transitional features is much easier with cladistic analysis. Synapomorphies (shared derived characters) found in two closely related organisms are by definition hypothesized to have been present in their common ancestor, whether or not we have a record of that ancestor. Hence, our hypotheses about evolutionary changes are more explicit, and the cladograms on which they are based are corroborated by other features” (Padian, 2007:199).

Many claim that scientists don’t have proof of evolution because of the extreme gaps in the fossil record. Those who doubt the fossil record are unfair in asking for completeness that doesn’t and can’t exist, at least with today’s technology.

“Ask the guy sitting on the next stool if he can produce proof of his unbroken patrilineal ancestry for the last four hundred years. Failing your challenge, the legitimacy of his birth is to be brought into question…not only are you placing on the other patron an unreasonable burden of proof, you are also questioning his integrity if he fails. But isn’t that what creationists do when they claim that our picture of evolution in the fossil record must be fraudulent because there are gaps in the fossil record?” (Padian, 2007:199)

Other arguments for intelligent design include the ‘theory’ factor. Although a theory within the scientific field is true until proven false, this word taken outside of that context is only an abstract thought. Therefore, intelligent design, in the public’s eye, is as factual as the theory of evolution.

“The antievolutionists’ claim that evolution is “just a theory” can be persuasive due to the general public’s lack of understanding about the methodologies and practices of science and the different connotations words have when used in science in contrast to their use in everyday life” (Johnson, 340).

It is difficult to promote an idea that, in a normal classroom, can take up to a semester to understand fluently. Trying to take this scholastic situation and teach it to the average person puts an impossible burden on the scientific community. Not only does one have to teach to help the general public understand the scientific data that proves evolution to be true, one has to teach a group of people who don’t want to be taught.
The controversy of intelligent design (ID) stems from the promotion of teaching it in American schools. There are several reasons for parents, the scientific community, and others to disagree with this promotion. Although the god taught in intelligent design is not Christian, it is still obvious propaganda for the religious community, to which some parents may not want their children to be exposed. This causes ID to be a breach of the first amendment under the U.S. constitution.
Even so, many teachers are still attempting to teach it in the classroom, including Sharon Lemburg at Frazier Mountain High School in California (Johansen, 2007:32). She created a class that supported intelligent design, called Philosophy of Intelligent Design. When questioned of its authenticity, she changed the name to Philosophy of Design. The syllabus showed 23/24 listed videos to take the pro-creation anti-evolution stance. The course description read: “This class will take a close look at evolution as a theory and will discuss the scientific, biological and biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin’s philosophy is not rock-solid” (Johansen, 2007:33).
Most importantly, for this paper, is the inability to test Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. If it is to be taught alongside Darwin’s theory of natural selection, then it should be tested. However, a faith-based theory is non-testable. The basis of ID is an indisputable belief in supernatural forces shaping our world.
Placing a non-testable theory next to Darwin’s theory of evolution “compromises science education” (National Academy of Sciences, 2008:43). According to Richard Fortey,

“It suppresses research rather than encouraging it. It’s not really a theory, it’s a story. It deflects the young from asking the important questions. It serves to kill curiosity rather than encourage it” (Fortey, 2007:68)

When questioning intelligent design, or any aspect of religion, one is often confronted with one of these two undisputable responses: Because God said so. You have to have faith. It is this vague answer which causes the scientific community to question the authenticity of intelligent design as a scientific theory.

The contemporary practice of the “scientific method”…emphasizes a deductive framework in which theoretical models based on observation are used to generate falsifiable hypotheses. Pending falsification or corroboration of hypotheses, models are refined and further tested…If a model or theory cannot be falsified by some observation, it is often not considered scientific. (Plavcan, 2007:369)

Intelligent design should not be taught in the scientific classroom. It is of religious basis and is not neutral to all religions. If religion is to be taught in schools, it should be a class on all religions, taught in an unbiased, anthropological perspective.

"The Establishment Clause sets up a line of demarcation between religion and government in our society, and the Supreme Court determines where the line is drawn to accommodate liberties in our ever-changing society. Although the exact language is absent, the Supreme Court has repeatedly determined that the Constitution does indeed call for separation between church and state" (AU, 2009)

Faith should be left in the church and out of the classroom, as determined by the Supreme Court. Because it is up to the Supreme Court to decide where the line is drawn, society will continue to push their beliefs on others and on the State.

“If intelligent design creationism were to be discussed in public school, then Hindu, Islamic, Native American, and other non-Christian creationist views, as well as mainstream religious views that are compatible with science, also should be discussed…it would be improper to teach these viewpoints as though they were scientific” (National Academy of Sciences, 2008:45)

The solution would be an elective humanities or religion course. “That is exactly what advocates of the legal “teaching about religion” – and thus about origins – would like to do in high school social studies or humanities” (Witham, 2002:150). However, most high schools don’t have humanities electives, and there is no room to add an extra class to the student workload. Perhaps a revision of the student workload is in order, to bring additional important information back into the schools.

“Put the teaching of the Bible back where it belongs in our schools: not in the scientific laboratory, but in its proper historical and literary context. An elective, nonsectarian high school Bible class would allow students to explore one of the most influential books of all time and would do so in a manner that clearly falls within Supreme Court rulings” (Feiler, 2005. In: Johansen, 2007:46).


Conclusions

Intelligent design will always have a place in a world where faith and science are enemies. Advocates of intelligent design want students to know that God is the grand designer of life. The scientific community wants students to know that evolution is the way life is designed. However, these two ideas don’t necessarily conflict.
The arguments toward whether or not intelligent design should be taught in our schools seem to stem from the core argument of whether or not God exists. The general public assumes that evolution is out to prove God doesn’t exist; and to strip faith away from our children. Although some religious ideas have been questioned, “such as the ideas that the Earth was created very recently, that the Sung goes around the Earth, and that mental illness is due to possession by spirits or demons” (National Academy of Sciences, 2008:54), there are many religious ideas that fall outside the realm of science.
Science only wants to find complete and accurate explanations for the living world around us. Science is not trying to prove or disprove religion. If this incorrect notion could be explained, perhaps learning evolution in the classroom would seem less threatening, and intelligent design could be placed back on the church’s shelf of propaganda tools.

“Scientists and science educators have concluded that evolution should be taught in science classes because it is the only tested, comprehensive scientific explanation for the nature of the biological world today that I supported by overwhelming evidence and widely accepted by the scientific community. The ideas supported by creationists, in contrast, are not supported by evidence and are not accepted by the scientific community” (National Academy of Sciences, 2008:53).

As long as intelligent design cannot be tested, it should remain outside of the science classroom.

[Gadreille]

Bibliography

Americans United for Separation of Church and State (2009) About Americans United:
frequently asked questions. Electronic Document.
http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq Accessed March 08, 2009

Betty, S (2005) Intelligent Design Theory Belongs in the Science Classroom. In: Merino,
N (ed) (2008) Religion in Schools pp. 63-68. Greenhaven Press.

Fortey, R (2007) Intelligent Design Cannot Be Tested Scientifically. In: Merino, N (ed)
(2008) Religion in Schools pp. 63-68. Greenhaven Press.

Gish, Duane T. (1995) “Scientific Creationism” should be taught in Science Classrooms. In:
Leone, BJ (2002) Creationism vs. Evolution. Greenhaven Press, Inc.

Johansen, BE (2007) Silenced! Academic Freedom, Scientific Inquiry, and the First
Amendment under Siege in America. Praeger Publishers.

Johnson, Norman A. (2007) Is Evolution “Only a Theory”? Scientific Methodologies and
Evolutionary Biology.In: Petto, AJ and Godfrey, LR (2007) Scientists Confronts
Creationism: Intelligent Design and Beyond. W.W. Norton and Company, Inc.

Leone, BJ (2002) Creationism vs. Evolution. Greenhaven Press, Inc.
National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies
(2008) Science, Evolution, and Creationism. The National Academies Press.

National Center for Science Education (2008) What is "Intelligent Design" Creationism?
Electronic document. http://ncseweb.org/creationism/general/what-is-intelligent-design-creationism, accessed February 12, 2009.

Padian, Kevin & Kenneth Angielczyk (2007) “Transitional Forms” versus Transitional Features.
In: Petto, AJ and Godfrey, LR (2007) Scientists Confronts Creationism: Intelligent
Design and Beyond. W.W. Norton and Company, Inc

Petto, AJ and Godfrey, LR (2007) Scientists Confronts Creationism: Intelligent Design
and Beyond. W.W. Norton and Company, Inc.

Plavcan, Michael (2007) The Invisible Bible: The Logic of Creation Science. In: Petto, AJ and
Godfrey, LR (2007) Scientists Confronts Creationism: Intelligent Design and Beyond.
W.W. Norton and Company, Inc.

Wells, Jonathan (1998) Evolution by Design Succeeds Where Darwin Fails. In: Leone, BJ (ed)
(2002) Creationism vs. Evolution. Greenhaven Press, Inc.

Witham, LA (2002) Where Darwin Meets the Bible. Oxford University Press.

IMPORTANT

Previously received criticism

This paper has already been graded by my professor. There were a few grammatical errors, which I have not fixed because it was hard enough to edit the format of this thing...
Also, he mentioned I was too lenient on the creationist point of view. I was trying to portray the information as neutral as possible with information given, but this paper is still extremely swayed to the scientific perspective.
Lastly, my quotes were too long. I realize this, but I decided not to change it because 1. I already received an A on the paper and 2. The quotes portray important information that is better quoted than paraphrased.

Discussion

If you wish, feel free to discuss the positives or negatives of my argument, or the arguments in the paper in general. You may talk about the subject matter, whether it be personal feelings or the official statement from your local schools. Please, read my paper before posting. I may have already addressed your concerns.

There are some things that are not to be discussed here:

• Creationism vs. Evolution.
  This is not about which is right, this is about how or if they should be taught in public schools. All arguments about creation vs. evolution should pertain to the classroom. By classroom I mean public high school system.
  If there are any arguments, they should be put forth logically and as politely as possible. I have taken logic before, I will discredit your argument if it is not valid.
  
• The format of my paper.
  I know, there are indentions missing and my bibliography is screwed up. The original format looks much better!
  

[Sponsored content]