Intelligent Design in the Classroom: a Darwinian Approach

INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN THE CLASSROOM:

A DARWINIAN APPROACH

Professor Hamilton

Drummond

…Darwin moved us forward to a hilltop, where we could look back and see the way from which we came. But for this view, this insight, this knowledge, we must abandon our faith in the pleasant poetry of Genesis.

Brady

We must not abandon faith! Faith is the important thing!

Drummond

Then why did God plague us with the power to think? Mr. Brady, why do you deny the one faculty which lifts man above all other creature on the earth: the power of his brain to reason. What other merit have we?...

Excerpted from Inherit the Wind[1]

Introduction

Evolutionary theory directly conflicts with Judeo-Christian dogma. How can we reconcile this conflict and coherently present it in secular public schools? Creation-science has long been removed from science curriculums[2] but the burgeoning field of intelligent design is making headway in American curriculums[3]. Should intelligent design survive constitutional challenge?

To analyze this issue I have broken the subject into the categories typically used to label Darwinian theory.[4] It is my hope that this demonstrates the usefulness of in the Darwinian model to critical thinking and why it must be stressed in public schools.

Overpopulation of ideas (or what people think)

In nature, there are limited resources. As populations increase in size individuals compete for these resources.[5] The same is true in the realm of idea. When two philosophies attempt to answer the same question they will begin to compete to persuade human minds. Science and religion both attempt to answer the question of the meaning of life and so, conflict occurs. The most important battlefield is the public classroom where human minds are held captive. This sectiondescribes the overpopulation of thought by giving a brief overview of the tenets of the three major philosophies currently at the forefront of modern American curriculum debate.[6]

Creationism & Creation-Science

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.”[7] “Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.”[8]

There is no way to reconcile these beliefs with evolutionary dogma.[9] Despite the deceptive name this is patently NOT science.[10] Science implies an adherence to the scientific method.[11] Christian Science starts with a basic premise -- God exists -- and bases everything else on that concept. There is no attempt to base this premise on any observed fact and new observations are read to preserve the basic premise. It looks like science and speaks like science but this is NOT science because its conclusion is that what cannot be explained must be God. Such a conclusion assumes, without proof, the existence of God and is therefore NOT science. Arguments in favor of teaching creationism come strictly from a religious freedom perspective and have not been successful since 1987.[12]

Darwinian & Modern Evolutionary Theory.

Webster’s defines biological evolution as “a general name for the history of the steps by which any living organism has acquired the morphological and physiological characters which distinguish it; a gradual unfolding of successive phases of growth or development.”[13] “In recent bickering, however, evolution has been understood to mean the theory which holds that man has developed from some pre-existing lower type.”[14]

Like any scientific theory it cannot (yet) be proven.[15] Thus it runs afoul of creationists who argue that belief in evolution requires just as much faith as belief in creation.[16] The difference between evolutionary theory and creation science is that evolution is based on the scientific method.[17] Hypotheses are made and tested and revised based on observations.[18] What cannot be observed is not included and what cannot be supported by observation is discarded.[19] There is no question that Darwin’s original theory as outlined in his Origin of the Species[20] has numerous flaws and that while many of these problems of evolution have been solved, many still remain.[21] But these holes continue to be studied using scientific principles and the scientific community continues to get closer to a truth.[22]

Flawed as it is, evolution has become a major paradigm in scientific thought largely because of “its utility in directing research and explaining observations within a particular field of study.”[23]The model of evolution closely matches the scientific method and is a useful tool to teach and understand science. This led renowned biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky to say “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”[24]

The National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) endorses this view in its list of tenets of biology education which demonstrates the inextricable link of science and evolution. The following are the pertinent parts of the list[emphasis added]:[25]

- In science, a theory is not a guess or an approximation but an extensive explanation developed from well-documented, reproducible sets of experimentally-derived data from repeated observations of natural processes.

- The models and the subsequent outcomes of a scientific theory are not decided in advance, but can be, and often are, modified and improved as new empirical evidence is uncovered. Thus, science is a constantly self-correcting endeavor to understand nature and natural phenomena

- Science is not teleological: the accepted processes do not start with a conclusion, then refuse to change it, or acknowledge as valid only those data that support an unyielding conclusion. Science does not base theories on an untestable collection of dogmatic proposals. Instead, the processes of science are characterized by asking questions, proposing hypotheses, and designing empirical models and conceptual frameworks for research about natural events.

- Students can maintain their religious beliefs and learn the scientific foundations of evolution.

- Science and religion differ in significant ways that make it inappropriate to teach any of the different religious beliefs in the science classroom.

Intelligent Design

Intelligent design (ID) theorists disagree with the NABT list. They agree with the first two points but believe that God can be proven through experimentally-derived data and that the next self-correcting endeavor should be to acknowledge His existence. ID theorists believe that human life systemsareso complex that they could not possibly have developed without external planning.[26] ID does not require belief in God per se but simply in some architectural force (for example the Raellian movement which believes in extraterrestrial seeding is an intelligent design advocate).[27] ID proponents argue that it is evolutionists who are basing their theory on an untestable collection of dogmatic proposals. Leading ID-thinker Michael Behe argues that strict adherence to the dogma of creation by randomness has led science to ignore the elephant in the room.[28]

Pro-evolutionists see ID as just the latest attempt at creation science.[29] They see intelligent design as religious thought shielding itself in scientific language.[30] But IDproponents claim that observations can prove design and that continued observations can be made that are consistent with design.[31] Thus they claim ID complies with the scientific method and that withholding their theories from the curriculum amounts to viewpoint discrimination.[32]

One ID lobbying group, the Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC), has developed a strategy for competing with evolution called “the wedge”.[33]While they have failed to win support in the scientific community and to date no intelligent design theories have been published in respectable peer reviewed journals, they have made substantial headway in the court of public opinion owing largely to eloquent and easy-to-read books on the subject.[34]

But, intelligent design is still NOT science because scientists do not accept the observation of irreducible complexity as an observation primarily because it does nothing to further scientific pursuit.[35] As expected, the issue ultimately rests on whether one believes in God. And so they have made their way to court.

Competition (or how these philosophies have butt heads in American courts)

The first major legal battle was fought in Tennessee in 1927. The ACLU placed an ad seeking a school teacher to help them challenge the state’s Anti-Evolution Act.[36] The act proscribed criminal penalties in the form of a fine to anyone who is “to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.”[37] A substitute teacher named John Scopes agreed. Renowned defense counsel, Clarence Darrow, got involved against the wishes of the ACLU and soon it became the “trial of the century,” pitting evolution against religion in a court battle filled with theatrics.[38] In the end, Scopes lost his trial but won his appeal on a technicality.[39] Thus, much to the dismay of the ACLU, the case failed to turn it into a national test case.

Forty years later, in 1968, the Supreme Court got its chance to invalidate a statute imposing criminal liabilities on the teaching of evolution in Epperson v. Arkansas[40]. JusticeStewart’s concurrence said, “States are most assuredly free ‘to choose their own curriculums for their own schools.’ A State is entirely free, for example, to decide that the only foreign language to be taught in its public school system shall be Spanish. But would a State be constitutionally free to punish a teacher for letting his students know that other languages are also spoken in the world? I think not.”[41]Here, the court was urged to strike the statute for vagueness as it was difficult to determine if one could not teach evolution at all or just not teach that evolution was true.[42]But instead, the court held that removing evolution from the curriculum was a violation of the first amendment.[43]

Christian lobbying groups struggled to uphold creationism as the courts mandated evolutionary instruction. In 1982, the Arkansas court revisitedtheir educationalpolicy to strike down its balanced treatment law[44] requiring the teaching of creation alongside evolution.[45] And five years later, the US Supreme Court followed suit, in Edwards v. Aguillard,invalidating a very similar Louisiana equal treatment statute.[46]

Phillip Johnson argues that “[T]he majority opinion in Edwards said that the state was not only permitted to exclude the creationist viewpoint, but was required to do so -- and not because belief in a supernatural creator was necessarily false or irrational, but precisely because it was religious. The logic implies that creationist arguments must be excluded regardless of their merits, and that students may hear only the naturalistic viewpoint on the subject of origins.”[47]

The Edwards court applied the now well established (though highly criticized) Lemon test first developed in Lemon v. Kurtzman.[48] To survive the three part test, the government conduct in question (1) must have a secular purpose, (2) must have a principal or primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and (3) must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.[49]

Most recently, the Supreme Court denied certiorari on a case involving a disclaimer to be read before teaching evolution.[50] Thus they upheld the Lemon test and the principle of the lower court’s decision that such a disclaimer is unconstitutional. The policy challenged in Freiler stated:[51]

Whenever, in classes of elementary or high school, the scientific theory of evolution is to be presented, whether from textbook, workbook, pamphlet, other written material, or oral presentation, the following statement shall be quoted immediately before the unit of study begins as a disclaimer from endorsement of such theory.

It is hereby recognized by the Tangipahoa Board of Education, that the lesson to be presented, regarding the origin of life and matter, is known as the Scientific Theory of Evolution and should be presented o inform students of the scientific concept and not intended to influence or dissuade the Biblical version of Creation or any other concept

It is further recognized by the Board of Education that it is the basic right and privilege of each student to form his/her own opinion and maintain beliefs taught by parents on this very important matter of the origin of life and matter. Students are urged to exercise critical thinking and gather all information possible and closely examine each alternative toward forming an opinion. [emphasis added]

As in the precedence, the district court applied the Lemon test and found that the disclaimer failed the first prong of the test finding that the secular purposes presented by the school board were a sham.[52] The appellate court found that the disclaimer survived the first prong under a deferential standard. But they applied a stricter standard for the latter two prongs and held that the disclaimer failed both.[53] A notable issue with the disclaimer was that it explicitly mentioned the Bible as an alternative theory.[54]

The Supreme Court overlooked this opportunity to clarify their establishment clause jurisprudence. Justice Scalia dissented to the denial of cert. arguing that this was a perfect opportunity to abolish Lemon once and for all.[55] However this view was not supported by his brethren. And so, Lemon remains the test of choice for upcoming challenges.

As a final twist, a recent attempt was made to sneak creation science into the classroom by way of the teacher’s first amendment rights.[56] The teacher, Rodney Levake, brought an action against the school district for reassigning him out of his Biology class when he refused to teach evolution without teaching the criticisms. Levake’s claim was based on grounds that it violated his free exercise of religion, free speech and due process. The court granted the school summary judgment on all three grounds premising the holding on placing ultimate curriculum control in the hands of the school and not the teacher.[57]

Undaunted, ID advocates still work to educate teachers so that they can bring their ideology to the forefront.[58] Concurrently, intelligent designers continue to lobby legislatures and create new challenges for the court system.[59]

Variation & Adaptation (or what is brewing around the country)

In 2001, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed an amendment to their Better Education For Students and Teachers Act that focused on deemphasizing evolution in the name of critical thinking:[60]

It is the sense of the Senate that (1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and (2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject. [emphasis added]

Intelligent design proponents were active in lobbying for this amendment.[61] The resolution was incorporated into the Conference Reports of the final bill and signed into law by President Bush on January 8th, 2002 as H.R. 1 the "No Child Left Behind Act.” The resolution was incorporated as: [62]

The Conferees recognize that a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from the religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society. [emphasis added]

In response to this Act, the Board of Education in West Virginia enacted new statewide curriculum standards.[63] An ID lobbying group, the Intelligent Design Network (IDNet) was active in lobbying to have these standards conform to their views.[64] They had a few nominal successes but overall the curriculum still reflects majoritarian scientific views.[65]

IDNet was successful in lobbying to remove “implications that human beings are living objects.”[66] The revised version instead requires students to classify between living and non-living thus avoiding the religious objection to the word “object” (as opposed to “phenomenon” orother less secular wording).[67]

IDNet was unsuccessful at efforts to remove mention of evolution from 3rd through 8th grades.[68] Theirargument being that these children are too young to assess the situation with the critical thinking skills necessary to comprehend it.[69]Of course that argument also cuts the other way as it would give creationists more time to indoctrinate young minds before fair presentation of science is attained.