Intelligent design (ID), or the theory that life could not have come around by chance but was designed and created by an intelligent entity, has been an area of controversy in the public school system for decades. The prevailing theory taught is, of course, evolution. This theory explains life as a gradual process from one common ancestor.
I had the opportunity to interview a Baptist pastor, anthropologist, and Christian biologist in the last couple of weeks on this subject and how they believe public school systems should handle the presentation of information. The viewpoints held by each are further evidence that ID needs to be taught within public school systems.
Evolution is, without a doubt, the most prevalent origin story in public education. The theory of evolution has been around for centuries, from Greek philosophers such as Empedocles and Anaximander (some of the first ancient Greek philosophers to develop ideas of life from non-life), to current scientists such as Neil Degrasse Tyson - the “controversy” over intelligent design being taught truly began in the 1980s, when Phillip Johnson adopted and developed the theory.
Johnson, also known as the father of intelligent design, believed that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution came up short in explaining the origins of life on Earth and looked for an alternative explanation. The fight for intelligent design to be taught in public schools is not a religious agenda, as many think it is, and Johnson proves this.
“Part of the reason why it's a bad idea to introduce religious beliefs as another way of thinking about science is that it isn't a science, first of all, it's a religious belief, and secondly it should be compared to other religious beliefs,” Dr. Ramie Gougeon, a professor of anthropology at the University of West Florida said. “If that’s an explanation or way of understanding the world, compare it with other similarly constructed belief systems. It is not a counter to or an alternative to scientific reasoning and evidence.”
While Dr. Gougeon does present the idea that ID is not a science, the idea that evolution is strictly a science is also flawed. Evolution is but a theory, and thus is similar and can be compared to ID. Johnson argues that ID should be taught in science classes because it is a testable theory - the test is, in fact, evolution.
“It is testable, and the test is Darwinian evolution,” Johnson said in a PBS article. “The claim of evolutionary biologists is that unintelligent causes did the whole job. If they can prove it, then the counter-hypothesis that you need intelligence has been tested, and it has been shown to be false.”
This is the beginning of the logical argument for intelligent design being taught. If we can argue that evolution is a scientific theory, we can certainly say that intelligent design is, too. If evolution cannot fully explain or prove that unintelligent causes created life, which it has not yet, then the opposite must hold some weight.
On top of this, Dr. Aresia Watson, who has a Ph.D. in Science Education with an Emphasis in Biology and has done research on evolution education, said that science as a term has changed over time; so to argue that intelligent design is not “science” is lacking by definition.
“A lot of terminology changes over time, and so where science essentially just meant knowledge, if you were going out and you were gleaming knowledge about the natural world, to a certain extent you were ‘sciencing,’” Watson said. “And so you go back to kind of the foundations of modern science, as it is today, you have men like Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, who believed that there was order, design, purpose, and planning in the natural world that they could actually go out and discover it, and you have then this formulation of a process to actually go out and learn about the natural world without allowing your bias to influence your conclusions.”
Some of the most well-known scientists began their scientific journey as a way to study and observe the order, design, and planning of the natural world - they were going out to learn more about the intelligent design of the planet. As time went on, the idea of intelligent design was pushed away and evolution became the only “scientific” explanation for the origin of life.
Joshua Doss, a Baptist pastor in Alabama, builds on this idea and offers an explanation for evolution’s failure to prove itself. While his explanation is the Christian God, it can be applied to the idea of intelligent design by any entity.
“We have a very healthy, strong, and accurate wealth of scientific knowledge. I think we're just missing the final explanation; I think we're missing, in modern science, I think the predominant voices lack the constant in the equation being a Creator,” Doss said.
He said that many scientists, in his experience, do believe in some sort of unseen hand - whether it is the God particle or something else, there are many things that cannot be explained by science at this time and so scientists have had to attribute the complexity of life and the natural world to some higher Force, or some Grand designer.
Understanding the argument that ID should be taught as a scientific theory in a classroom also disproves the argument of the Establishment Clause. This is perhaps the most common argument against intelligent design being taught.
According to the Legal Information Institute, the Establishment Clause “not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.”
“When that [mandatory education] gets brought over to the U.S., we’ve already established this system that we’re going to have a separation of church and state,” Gougeon said. “We will not have a state-sponsored religious belief system, so if the government is the one that is dictating that everybody is going to have to go to school, we’re going to have some common ideas that are taught in the curriculum, they can’t have this religious underpinning.”
This argument against intelligent design is unique in that it also argues against itself. Saying that any ideas taught within a school’s curriculum cannot have a religious underpinning goes against the Establishment Clause, too. It is directly preferring non-religion over religion and it takes the stance that the theory of intelligent design is not scientific, when in reality it is a different explanation for the origins of life.
This argument can also go the other direction - whether evolution or intelligent design is being taught, you may have religious underpinnings. To say that religion is not a part of evolution is presenting misinformation; you have to look at what evolution is at the root.
“When they say ‘well, we have to teach evolution because we can't have religion in the classroom,’ that's a false dichotomy,” Watson said. “Because secular, materialistic evolution is a religious belief. It is the religious belief that there is no God.”
If nothing but the theory of evolution is taught, you also limit students' abilities to do several things: expand their language, think on higher levels of thought, explain morality, and answer questions every individual has.
Within the field of communications, there is a concept called constitutive rhetoric. Constitutive rhetoric discusses how language plays a role in who we are, who we become, and how we can define our realities. Thus, if students are not exposed to the concept, or theory, of intelligent design, then schools are limiting the language they can use to sculpt their realities and determine who they are.
The opportunity to learn the language and communication that goes into teaching intelligent design and evolution is a needed one - especially for the younger generation, who are in the midst of determining who they are.
An associate professor at Arkansas Tech University and a science teacher for the Arkansas public school system said “First, it [intelligent design] is a new approach to teaching a framework. Teachers should always be looking for new ideas. [...] Secondly, Intelligent Design can propel the classroom teachers in teaching controversial subjects that make students think on higher levels of thought.”
The idea that ID cannot be taught in a classroom is limiting both teachers and students from thinking about controversial topics. As Dr. Watson said, science is not consensus, science is controversy, and teachers need to embrace that concept and do real science.
“I would like to see us go back to actually teaching science,” Watson said about ID in classrooms. “‘Here’s what science is and science allows for questions. Here are some questions that the Royal Society of London has about the central dogma of evolution,’ and I can say that in the science classroom without losing my teaching license, or something like that.”
The theory of intelligent design may also help students understand morality and purpose. Watson said the original man, from the perspective of ID, is made of the same material as the animals but is different because he has intellect and reason, he also has language, he has an understanding of morality, a recognition of right and wrong.
“Atheists don't have a basis for morality; matter and energy are, by nature, by what they are, amoral,” she said. “There's nothing moral about molecules in motion.”
If students are taught that all complexity of life began with and was “created” by amoral products, the understanding of morality is muddled. The inherent morals and knowledge that an individual should not commit murder, or should not steal, would not have come into being by amoral elements.
As for answering questions that every individual has, ID theory can be extremely healthy for students to be exposed to especially when all they have heard about is the theory of evolution. Dr. Aresia Watson explains it best:
“[Evolutionary theory] is a religion that has very definite philosophical implications for how people live their life. So, when we're saying ‘well, we're just going to teach science,’ we're not just teaching science. We’re answering these kids' worldview questions with: ‘Where did I come from?’ You came from nothing. ‘Why am I here?’ You have no purpose for being here. ‘How am I supposed to interact?’ Well, matter and energy are amoral, so you can do whatever you want. I mean that's, I'm not saying that that's what teachers are saying in the classrooms, but if you're going to be logically consistent,” she finished with a shrug.
You see, students need to be exposed to different schools of thought. It is necessary for a young mind, especially considering that not every child has a home that will teach intelligent design - just like not every child has a home that will teach evolution.
Teaching intelligent design in a classroom is not pushing a religious agenda - it is pushing for different schools of thought, it is pushing for students to go into the natural world and determine for themselves, by “sciencing,” how everything came into existence.
One of my favorite quotes on the controversy of ID and evolution is by former President George W. Bush: “I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought … you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.”
Beginning the process for this article, I held the firm belief that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution in public schools; however, I have found that this is not what I believe. I believe that SCIENCE is to be taught in the classroom - and that means teaching both life models: the theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design.
As a parting sentiment, here’s an audio clip of my interview with Dr. Aresia Watson:
Comments