I recently watched “Expelled“. It is a documentary about the theory of “Intelligent Design.” It attempts to make the argument for why Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools along side Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. It was produced by and starred Ben Stein, a well known speech writer, political commentator and bit actor of “Ferris Bueller’” fame. He is a very outspoken critic of Darwinism and a proponent of teaching Intelligent Design in public schools. I finished the documentary with the exact same opinion as when I started.
When I was growing up, if someone has asked me what I thought of “Intelligent Design” I would have asked if that was a Maytag Dishwasher innovation. It was just not a hot topic in Northeast public high schools of the 70′s. We were strictly of the Darwinian mindset.
In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.
As we all know or should know, Intelligent Design is the concept 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 proponents of Intelligent Design believe has the force of scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life. Proponents hold that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher force rather than evolving from more primitive forms.
Which ever side of the fence you are on, there is no disputing that it is an emotionally charged issue with big time support on both sides. In 2005, former President George W. Bush voiced his support for the teaching of intelligent design in public schools during a roundtable interview with 5 Texas newspapers. Bush stated:
“I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,”
Notwithstanding the former President’s views, it is risky business for a public school teacher to even mention creationism.
In 2007, Texas Science Education Curriculum director Chris Comer used her work email account circulate an email announcing a speech by Barbara Forrest, co-author of Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design and an expert witness in Kitzmiller v. Dover case. Shortly after the email was circulated to some colleagues and online groups. Within hours of the email being sent she was called on the carpet and forced to resign in lieu of termination for insubordination.
In August of 2007, The Texas State Board of Education came out firmly against the teaching of Intelligent Design. According to an article in The Dallas Morning News, interviews with 11 of the 15 board members found little support for the teaching of the theory in biology or other science classes.
Intelligent Design and variations of it do have support in some parts of the country. In light of the Kitmiller decision, school districts have been trying their own end runs by taking steps to “unofficially” encourage students to question Darwinism rather than make it an official part of the curriculum.
The Cobb County School District in Georgia attempted this tactic by placing disclaimer stickers on science books. The stickers described evolution as “theory, not a fact,” and said students should consider the subject with an open mind Several parents and the ACLU sued the school district to have the stickers removed. A federal court ruled that the stickers were unconstitutional. It ruled in January 2005 that the stickers represented an attempt by the board to advance religion in the classroom. The stickers have been removed.
In 2005 The Kansas Board of Education became the first public school entity to sanction the teaching of it along side Darwinism.
The Louisiana House of Representatives passed a the “Academic Freedom Bill” that singles out evolution and other theories or fields of science and implies that they are controversial. The Louisiana state’s Board of Elementary and Secondary Education adopted a policy that gives teachers the ability to use materials outside of the regular curriculum to teach “controversial” scientific theories including evolution, origins of life, and global warming. Backers of the policy state that it is intended to foster critical thinking in students. Opponents insist its only purpose is to provide a loophole for creationists to attack the teaching of evolution.
Should Intelligent Design be taught hand and hand with the theory of evolution letting the students make come to their own conclusions? Is it just a clever way of doing an end run around the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
While the theory of evolution admittedly has linear gaps, Intelligent Design has no credible basis in scientific theory to justify being taught as accepted social or science fact in public high schools. Unlike the theory of evolution there is simply too much room for manipulation based on personal religious beliefs in violation of the Establishment Clause Of The 1st Amendment. That is my side of the fence.
It appears that over 80 years after Scopes trial, the monkey is still king of the jungle for now.
What side of the fence are you on?
©2009 Brian Cuban
June 21st, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Is Kansas also teaching that the earth is flat?
June 22nd, 2009 at 12:47 am
The one thing that "Expelled" exposed me to was the incredible arrogance among the scientific community. Even though they readily admit that theories (accepted as "fact" for decades, even centuries) are often disproved by another, they insist on referring to the latest as "THE fact".
The notion, not to mention the incredibly monumental odds that man (and all other living creatures) emerged from one, single-cell organism is just as far-fetched and unproven as any other theory. While the scientific community admits "gaps" ( and those "gaps" are more like grand canyons, such as explaining where matter came from in the first place), they refuse to acknowledge that these "gaps" mean that a theory remains unproven. You can't be pregnant…somewhat…with gaps. It's proven fact or it isn't.
It doesn't matter to me what side of the fence that people are on, but I continue to be sickened by man's arrogance and insistence that, not only is he right, but all must subscribe to his "facts". I see no difference in this behavior, whether it be among the scientific or religious community.
Another aspect of this argument that frustrates me, is the extreme interpretations of Separation of Church and State. Do we really need more evidence than the fact that the founding fathers mentioned God so many times in the very forging of our government, it's charter and policies? Separation of church and State is clearly meant to show that government may endorse no one, particular church. However, it was clearly never meant to imply that one may not so much as mention God or creationism in a governmental facility. To me, that notion is ridiculous and an extreme position.
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:48 am
It seems to me that some of the proponents of teaching "Intelligent Design" have a loose definition of the term "theory". Theory of Evolution maybe just a theory, but it is a heavily tested, experimented and studied and reviewed theory. Until the theory of Intelligent Design has met all the requirements to be defined as a scientific theory, than I believe the teaching of it should be left to the parents (and the church of their choice), of the each individual student–outside of public schools.
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Intelligent Design should be tought in the classroom. I am 22 years old and from my experience the science curriculum being tought today is very weak especially when it comes to evolution. Students are being confused as oppose to educated. The playing field for both sides of the fence should be level regardless of personal beliefs. I recommend viewing the film or reading the book Case for a Creator, even if you are not the religous type, it is a very good film.
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:15 pm
I personally believe in Intelligent Design, but have no idea how the world was created. Did "God" do it like it says in the Bible? Or do Hindu's have it right? Buddha? I'm not sure that creationism and evolution have to be mutually exclusive. Maybe evolution is how God made it work.
I guess the main problem I have would be in the case of the stickers in E. Cobb Georgia. Is evolution 100% indisputable fact? No. Don't we want our children to think, and to challenge everything; to expand their mind? Of course. There are admitted gaps and mysteries involved in evolution, so what's wrong with thinking critically of it? Those who ascribe to religion, especially Christians in this country, are constantly criticized for being close-minded, and yet this is blatantly close-minded of those who worship at the altar of science. They are the establishment and are protecting themselves. This isn't about a fight for truth, this is about one group asserting their dominance over another that they abhor. If it were about truth, then they would welcome challengers. Were religious people trying to stir up trouble and create confusion about this topic like the ruling says? Maybe, maybe not. There's no way for you or any federal judge to know. It's awfully cynical of anyone to think so. I have no idea how a government official can make that ruling, suggesting that they know the motives of these individuals. I think that is unconsitutional.
Ultimately I don't think that Intelligent Design has enough research, fact and science behind it to be taught equally at public schools. However, I am 100% all for making sure all students know that Evolution is not infallible and that considering other possibilities is perfectly alright.
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Great points.
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Of course, the real solution here is school choice. If we allow parents to send their kids to schools which will teach to their liking the free market will sort it all out. If you want your kids taught that the world cam into existence by being carried on the back of a giant turtle – that is great for you.
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:54 pm
So you think you "came from a monkey"……..then go to the nearest zoo!! A lot of "intelligent design" went into creation and His name is GOD. The BEST SELLER of all time, called the Bible, clearly states , "In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth". What about that don't you understand? You may say, "you don't have faith"……..yet everytime you get on an elevator and fly in a plane, you exercise and demonstrate your faith! There will always be the "remnant" who believe the TRUTH and apparently you aren't part of it.
Hope I don't sound non-Christian………just get tired of "sitting back" and listening to what people WANT to hear. God and the Bible make such people very uncomfortable!
June 22nd, 2009 at 4:46 pm
'Intelligent design' was indeed used to get around laws. . I think that specifically came to circumvent those in the scientific community that overreacted to a theory of a religious community. This stopped them from looking critically at science and evolution, so as to not give any ground to the 'religious nuts'.
Before we whether creationism should be taught in schools, we should probably discuss that Microevo(lution) and Macroevo should definitely be taught as seperate ideas. It should be taught there are broad differences and alternatives to the latter. It's ignorant to recognize 'Evolution' as a single scientific theory. Even so, it continues to be taught as 'evolution' and used as an argument against creationism teaching. Did you know that most scientific creationists agree on the support of the theory of microevolution?
The part of the theory that creationists heavily disagree is Macro-Evolution. It, like creationism, is based on scientific principles that at best require blind faith of certain assumptions before a single experiment or test is performed. (I wouldn't argue that due this it's not a theory, but it seems that maybe Mary is saying exactly that?)
June 22nd, 2009 at 4:56 pm
cont from reply to Mary:
In the same way other sci ideas bring together a series of fact, there are established sci facts that are consistent with creationism. There are many facts that are shared by creatinism vs. naturalism debate and the way in which creationism relates those facts, just lends to a non-evo (as a whole theory) point of view. There is no such thing as a fact that requires a single interpretation of it's relation to other facts.
Creationism is easily dismissed by the secular sci community and accused of lacking scientific value of a theory at all. However, creationism is transparently compatible with the scientific approach Mary (and apparently Brian) defines for an scientific topic. Creationism makes statements about real people, places, things and events and is NOT supported solely with subjective ideas.
Since the foundations for naturalism and creationism relating the facts together are both supported on some pillars of assumptions, why shouldn't creationism be considered at least as scientific as the other? There is no scientific logic in throwing out one theory's presuppositions over another. Likewise there is nothing scientific in teaching there is no theoretical alternative to a theory.
June 22nd, 2009 at 4:58 pm
(couldn't fit it all in one)
Also, the fact that creationism is the only alternative to naturalism that is agreed upon by the general scientific community, makes it a valid teaching topic! Obviously, not all scientists agree on which one is true, but they do agree it must be one or the other.
Taking Ann's example… it was once agreed on by a greater majority that the earth was flat (and the center of the universe!) … indeed teaching that an alternative to 'fact' and saying the earth was round was even considered un-scientific. If we've digressed to a point of legally decreeing that all students must subscribe to one school of scientific thought and theory, perhaps we should also teach the world is flat again?
June 22nd, 2009 at 7:03 pm
There is no reason to believe that either side is inherently wrong. As mentioned above in the comments and to some extent in the text, there are gaps within both models. "Intelligent Design" is less than a theory, but there is no reason to not develop and understanding of it and possibly merge the ideas. Actual principals and concepts of Evolution as a theory and Intelligent Design as a hypothesis have the capability of being merged, assuming we had means to test the new theory. Why doesn't god have a hand in what we call natural selection? I'd like to point out that there is a skewed/distorted representation of time in the "good book". Not once is an actual "day" defined, nor a "year". If we all recall, for those who have background, Abraham was exceptionally old. Who is to say that the "days" in Genesis are not eras or periods previously shown as a much larger representation of time and that Abraham and others noted in the same books are not representations of large groups of people over vast span of time. Remember, much of the stories in the books consist of lessons taught by reading between the lines.
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:51 pm
An excellent read on the subject is "Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul" by Kenneth R. Miller. Not only does he debunk the ID movement and its lack of science to back it up, Meanwhile evolution has much credible evidence behind it. He rightly points out how the ID movement (largely a cleverly disguised, slightly modified creationist affair) seriously undermines America's leading role in the world in the science community.
Despite creationist or ID outcry, absolutely nothing about evolution dictates atheism. For some it does indeed, but for others like me, evolution is how God created me.
Yes, I believe in God AND evolution. I think that evolution indeed was our maker's way of creating us–randomness, natural selection, all of it. This makes us even more special. I am not concerned that complex processes cannot to be shown to have suddenly appeared. as the Intelligent Design folks desparately have tried but failed to show.
My God's hand is invisible–and works via evolution. But that is just my opinion–just my faith, a gut feeling, I can't prove that, and so neither should I expect that faith, that idea to be taught. Nor should Intelligent Design. ID cannot show any science to back up its claims. But evolution has PLENTY of HIGHLY credible science and rightfully should be taught. I have no problem with creationism and ID being mentioned, but only in passing to understand the issue– but they do not have the basis to demand equal time.
Some folks have had trouble grasping the earth is not flat, nor the center of the universe. I am amused at those who cling to the Bible for science facts because if it is a bestseller. Thinking that being related to other animals is somehow awful and degrading strikes me as just silly, self-centered and close-minded.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:54 pm
No matter how much evidence creationists think they can point to, if its not possible to falsify any of it through observation or experimentation, it is simply not scientific. A not-scientific theory has no place in a scientific discussion.
June 25th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Be careful of what you wish for…, your "Intelligent Designer" may not turn out to be a God at all.
December 15th, 2009 at 9:46 am
How dumb are you?