Why Intelligent Design Mustn’t be Taught in the Science Classroom

A rather noteworthy passage in the book of Ecclesiastes declares that there isn’t anything new under the sun, indeed. And when it comes to the Theory of Intelligent Design, never were there truer words spoken. Put succinctly, Intelligent Design is the assertion that living organisms are far too complex for mere happenstance, and thus leads one to the inescapable conclusion that the world and all its living organisms have or had a creator — an intelligent designer. Those who advocate the Intelligent Design Theory believe that it’s a scientifically viable theory and therefore seek to have it taught as science within the American public school system.

Of course, one would surely have to have been living in a vacuum not to have noticed the recent media frenzy regarding the ongoing battle to have Intelligent Design inserted into the science classroom. Using politically-framed language, advocates of Intelligent Design claim that it’s an equal and competing theory; therefore it should be taught alongside Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. However, there’s one glaring and major defect with this proposition; Intelligent Design is not science; it’s little more than a concocted euphemism for religion and it’s masquerading as science. For this reason alone, Intelligent Design should neither be qualified as a scientific theory nor should it be taught in public schools. Let it also be noted that many people often refer to Intelligent Design simply as ID, but I refuse to do this as I believe it softens the reality of this entirely inane concept.

Having made the assertion that Intelligent Design should not be taught in public schools, I’d like to direct the reader to three major components which are central to understanding the sinister nature of Intelligent Design. First of all, as we shall see later, the postulate that God or an Intelligent Designer created the universe is a priori knowledge and therefore does not meet the criteria for a valid scientific claim. In other words, the assertion that God created the universe is not a scientifically-testable hypothesis, so there aren’t any means for assessing whether its central claim is valid. Secondly, as we shall also see, the Theory of Intelligent Design amounts to little more than a stone-age creation myth fully clad in a plethora of modern spin, and, as we know, teaching religion in public schools violates the separation of church and state clause. Thirdly, in the attempt to “teach the controversy”, proponents of Intelligent Design are obfuscating science, suppressing factual knowledge and as a consequence, are further weakening America’s already declining scientific literacy.

On December 20, 2005 a Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Judge, John E. Jones III, handed down a landmark and legally judicious decision regarding the future of Intelligent Design: that the Dover area school board inappropriately injected religion into the science classroom. As Judge Jones noted in his written reply, “To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect, he wrote. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable [sic] alternative hypothesis grounded on religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions” (Scully 1). It is worth noting that Jones used the word, misrepresent. This “toss the baby out with the bath water” mentality is a maneuver that’s all too often employed by those prone to religious thinking. In other words, if one part of a theory cannot explain everything, then it’s time to disregard the entire theory and simply return to worshipping God. In his essay about Thomas Paine, the superb gentleman, Colonel Robert Ingersoll, beautifully illustrated the epistemological impatience of the religious mind:

[…]The ignorant are not satisfied with what can be demonstrated. Science is too slow for them, and so they invent creeds. They demand completeness. A sublime segment, a grand fragment, are of no value to them. They demand the complete circle – the entire structure. In music they want a melody with a recurring accent at measured periods. In religion they insist upon immediate answers to the questions of creation and destiny. The alpha and omega of all things must be in the alphabet of their superstition. A religion that cannot answer every question, and guess every conundrum is, in their estimation, worse than worthless. They desire a kind of theological dictionary – a religious ready reckoner, together with guide-boards at all crossings and turns. They mistake impudence for authority, solemnity for wisdom, and bathos for inspiration. The beginning and the end are all they demand. The grand flight of the eagle is nothing to them. They want the nest in which he was hatched, and especially the dry limb upon which he roosts… (Ingersoll 67-68).

But what of the question that complex design in living organisms implies the universe has or had an intelligent creator? Proponents of Intelligent Design will point us toward the observation that the useful objects produced by human beings strongly resemble the order and design we observe in the natural world. For example, the human body so strongly resembles a machine; the entirety of its individual yet complex inter-working parts all operating in unison. The conclusion, however, presupposes that because the effects we observe in nature so strongly resemble the order and effects found in man-made objects, that it’s logical for one to conclude that they both result from similar cause. This hypothesis is what is commonly referred to as the Argument from Design – a well known form of this argument was presented during the Middle Ages by the religious philosopher, St. Thomas Aquinas.

However, in 1802 the Argument from Design was presented yet again by an eighteenth-century theologian named, William Paley. In his treatise titled, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature, Paley ponders a watch which he’s discovered lying on the ground. He concludes that even though we may not know how this item came to be, the very fact that the watch possesses complex design leads one to consider the watch’s designer. Likewise, he concludes that when we observe the complexities of life we infer a creator. But this leaves one begging the question as to whether the conclusion necessarily follows the premises. As I’ve stated previously, this represents a priori knowledge and this type of information does not lend itself to empirical analysis. In layman’s terms, modern scientific understanding has rendered the design hypothesis completely groundless. According to Richard Dawkins, a world-renowned evolutionary biologist:

Paley’s argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of the day, but it’s wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism, is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind’s eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind (Dawkins 5).

As is now fairly obvious, the Argument from Design and its modern counterpart, Intelligent Design, are nothing more than dreamy attempts at explaining the origins of complex organisms and the world, but they’re both sorely lacking when it comes to presenting any corroborating empirical evidence. Ah, but more to the point: the pressing question is whether Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools as an alternative theory to evolutionary biology? To this question I offer a strident and resounding, “No!” As we previously noted, Intelligent Design does not meet the generally accepted criteria of science. But what then, one might ask, is required for a theory to be seriously considered by the modern scientific community? The answer to this question is not as elusive as one may think. In fact, the answer is very simple; it’s what we commonly refer to as the Scientific Method.

The Scientific Method is a systematic, rigorous and self-correcting process scientists use in order to achieve as accurate a picture of our physical universe as possible. Science uses the term “self-correcting” since it is not uncommon for scientific theories and research methodologies to be published in scientific journals and newspapers. The published results provide other scientists the opportunity to examine or “peer-review” both the methods used and the results offered. When errors are discovered, the theories – much like the case with cold fusion – are discarded altogether, or they are revised to fit new information and facts. Sadly, purveyors of religious dogma often point to this “weakness” in science, but if one takes time to consider the implications here, it’s quite the contrary; the concepts of self-correction and peer-reviewing actually point to science’s robust and intellectually-honest nature.

The scientific method is a methodical process which contains four steps: one, observation of a physical phenomenon; two, as a result of observing a particular phenomenon, the observing scientist formulates a hypothesis or premise to explain the observation; three, use of the hypothesis to predict additional phenomena or make new observations; four, formulate various and careful experiments in an attempt to confirm the hypothesis. If one looks carefully and is also of a scrupulous character, then this is where one would be forced to concede that the concept of Intelligent Design has run aground. Because the concept of God or an Intelligent Designer is purely a metaphysical one (beyond the physical world), then there isn’t any discernable method for scientists to test the hypothesis that the universe was designed by an intelligent force. In short, it does not necessarily follow that order implies design. Once again, this is a priori knowledge and thus does not lend itself to scientific experimentation. This simple yet inescapable conclusion consigns the theory of Intelligent Design to the realm of religion and pseudoscience.

Furthermore, aside from the fact that the concept of an Intelligent Designer doesn’t lend itself to experimentation, Intelligent Design does a very poor job in making predictions about other phenomenon. For example, it fails to explain various occurrences such as the poor construction of the human eye; with its blind spot and an initially inverted image, or various other “relic organs” such as the spleen and tonsils which suggest the forces of natural selection are at work. In addition, proponents of Intelligent Design appear hesitant to answer the central question of whom and what the “designer” actually is and how “it” came to be. Instead, it seems that advocates of Intelligent Design much prefer the unanswerable questions, according to Poole:

ID’s strategy was instead to focus on unanswered problems. As with any scientific field, areas of evolutionary biology are incompletely understood. To scientists, the areas suggested new research, experiments, and hypothesis. To IDers, they represented a chance to claim that these would never be answered by science. We cannot currently explain how this part of a bacterium evolved, they would reason, so it must have been created by an intelligent entity. This type of argument had for centuries been known as the ‘God of the gaps’. It is easy to do: you simply find a gap in current understanding and claim that it can only be filled by positing God (Poole 54).

What, then, does this tell us if science cannot test the hypothesis that the universe has or had an intelligent designer? It’s simple, without evidence to support its claims Intelligent Design amounts to nothing more than wishful thinking. Looking at it another way, it could be argued that proponents of Intelligent Design are actually hostile to science and its all-too-important condition of demanding supporting evidence. If we’re honest with one another, advocates of Intelligent Design are asking us to accept their claim sans proof and without any discernable way to confirm or deny their claim’s validity. In essence, we simply must have faith that their claims are true, and as is plain to see, this is a religious notion. The great English Philosopher, Bertrand Russell, eloquently and judiciously illustrates this point, “Moreover, the attitude that one ought to believe such and such a proposition, independently of the question whether there is evidence in its favor, is an attitude which produces hostility to evidence and causes us to close our minds to every fact that does not suit our prejudices” (Russell, 30-31).

Let us consider for a moment the implications of Russell’s statement, and its relevance to the question of Intelligent Design. If there aren’t any means in which to garner evidence or test the validity of Intelligent Design’s key concept, why, then, should any reasoning person accept the puerile notions entrenched within the Intelligent Design Theory? In fact, in many cases the sponsors of Intelligent Design are creating evidence to fit their theories, and this hardly seems the stuff that science is made of. The conclusion is inescapable: for any spurious ideas, astute and logical people must reject or at least suspend judgment until such time as more data are collected.

By implication, however, if one accepts the conclusions rendered by Intelligent Design, then by default one will also be compelled to accept the First-cause Argument; that for every observable effect there is a cause, and pursuing each effect to its original cause we call, God, but as, once again, Russell points out, “If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause” (Russell 6). So it would be reasonable for us to conclude that it is just as likely that the universe itself is the first cause as much as is God. However, we mustn’t stop here. What of the question regarding the existing evidence that advocates of Intelligent Design have previously presented regarding their hypothesis? As I said earlier, this, as we shall see next, is a case where advocates of Intelligent Design have forced the evidence to fit their theories.

As the author Christopher Hitchens refers to them, “The Intelligent Design Boobies” claim that the earth is approximately 6,000 years old; that Jurassic-era dinosaurs walked the earth alongside anatomically modern homo sapiens-sapiens and that, as a result of a massive flood, the Grand Canyon was carved in a matter of weeks, and not – as most scientists agree – in millions of years. It is very important for the reader to understand that all of these claims are in direct contradiction with the consensus of the scientific community. For example, by using potassium-argon dating, scientists have determined that approximately 65-million years separate Jurassic-era dinosaurs from anatomically modern humans. How do we know this? The isotope of Potassium – an unstable element containing more neutrons than protons and abundant in the earth’s crust – is known to decay at a steady rate to argon 40. Scientists are then able to determine the relative age of various materials, usually non-organic materials such as minerals and fossils, by calculating this ratio (http://archserve.id.ucsb.edu).

Because argon is a gas, the scientifically-literate reader could protest, and rightfully so, by asserting that it’s possible that some of the argon gas contained within a non-organic artifact could have previously escaped into the atmosphere, thus reducing the ratio. Indeed, this is entirely possible, however, unlikely. This is not likely to have occurred unless the substance (usually a volcanic rock or stone) had been heated to a sufficient enough temperature, and upon which it is then possible for some of the gas to be emitted into the atmosphere. And even if this was the case, there exist ways in which to detect this, as well. Indeed, science isn’t perfect but it’s certainly the best and most reliable tool we have for understanding our physical universe. The author, Steven Poole, nicely illustrates this point, “Of course scientific knowledge is always incomplete: that is what drives research. But that is a long way from saying it is wrong, or even controversial” (Poole 46).

When examining the inherent weaknesses of the Intelligent Design hypothesis, one could point to a litany of pseudoscientific nonsense and reasoning blunders, but this would yield only excruciatingly dull and pedantic reading. Nevertheless, as we have discovered, Intelligent Design is clearly not science, and for this reason alone, it must not be brought into the science classroom! Nevertheless, I’d be performing a grave injustice if I failed to point the reader to additional damning elements concerning Intelligent Design, and the ongoing battle to get it introduced into the science classroom.

The complete lack of scientific evidence isn’t the only problem plaguing the supporters of Intelligent Design. First and foremost, because we have demonstrated that Intelligent Design isn’t science but rather religion, this simple fact now raises some troubling legal uncertainties. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution – also known as the Establishment Clause – states the following: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. As one might have guessed, the adherents of Intelligent Design attempt to “get around” the establishment clause by using religiously-neutral terminology.

Nevertheless, as we can see, this is a rather arcane and preposterous distinction. Whether we call it Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Intelligent Design or natural religion is an altogether irrelevant point. Let’s face it, the majority of Americans belong to one or another sect of the Christian faith, and there’s little doubt that the “Intelligent Designer” would be interpreted as the God of Abraham. For example, one supporter of Intelligent Design, William Dembski, was quoted as stating, “Any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient” (Poole 51). Aside from the completely inane statement that science would be ‘fundamentally deficient without Christ’; his quote does cement the point that what Intelligent Design advocates are really talking about is Christianity. What is more relevant to the point, explicitly speaking, the government would then be placing itself in the position of endorsing religious schemes and supernatural explanations of life and the origin of the universe, and from a legal and constitutional perspective, this is clearly unacceptable.

So, from a scientific and legal standpoint, the Intelligent Design Theory comes up short on both counts and therefore must be kept away from the science classroom. However, there’s one additional yet very important aspect regarding Intelligent Design that I’d like to illuminate. Much like the neo-conservatives of the Republican Party, backers of the Intelligent Design Theory have become very adept at framing their language. Even the term “Intelligent Design” itself is, well…, designed to evoke certain emotional responses from listeners. Once again, the author, Steven Poole, makes this point squarely:

ID’s claim to be science was implicit in its self-description as a ‘theory’. In the parlance of science, a ‘theory’ is not just a casual guess, but a well-established understanding that accords with the present evidence and reliably explains or predicts features of the natural world. On the other hand, IDers regularly referred to evolution as’ just a theory’, appealing to the ordinary-language sense of theory as meaning a mere guess: in this way, you might have a theory about why your friend acted the way she did last Thursday; or you might even sarcastically deride another friend’s opinion by saying ‘That’s just your theory’.

Perhaps the most insidious and pervasive aspect of the entire Intelligent Design argument and those who peddle it, is simply that their incessant and dishonest use of politically-framed language has – in the minds of many Americans – made a parody of science. In his essay, Politics and the English Language, the much celebrated author, George Orwell, states that “The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink” (Orwell 116). The phrase ‘Intelligent Design Theory’ coupled with the subsequent and tireless political campaigning of its advocates has – in a manner of speaking – placed it on a political equal-footing with the Theory of Evolution. In addition, the utterly ridiculous and outrageous clamoring of “teach the controversy” has pervaded the American mind so much so that many people believe there’s actually a genuine controversy occurring – that somehow Intelligent Design is a viable and competing theory standing proud alongside Darwin’s great discovery. There is, of course, nothing that could be further from the truth.

This does, however, leave one begging the question as to why? How is it that so many people who claim to cherish Judeo-Christian values such as honesty, fairness and moderation will steep themselves in such blatant histrionics, obfuscation of truth and interference with factual investigation? One possible answer lies in the unsettling thought that when one creates the illusion in people’s minds that evolutionary biologists or “neo-Darwinists” – as the supporters of Intelligent Design like to call them – are little more than religious adherents to a natural religion themselves. This is most certainly a term which does nothing more than to stultify our tremendous gains in scientific knowledge, and it makes “straw men” of the countless hard-working scientists who’ve for centuries engaged in tireless and meticulous research.

But, as I noted, it also frames biology as a quasi-religion, and this is certainly something the purveyors of misinformation in the Intelligent Design camp know their adherents will comprehend. It works just as well in reverse, you see? So it goes: evolution is merely a theory, not unlike any other, hence it’s reasonable to conclude that evolution is just another competing belief system juxtaposed alongside and, at times, even opposed to the tenets of Christianity. Thus the term “Neo-Darwinists”, and when it is put this way, the terminology portrays him as some sort of divine being, and the rest of his disciples are merely “believers”. This conclusion may be tempting for the obtuse, but we must not forget the tremendous differentiation; evolution has an overwhelming amount of verifiable supporting physical evidence, Intelligent Design, as we have seen, does not.

I suspect, however, that the language and political bullying is the end result of what religion has always done best –the suppression of free-thinking individuals and the squelching of scientific inquiry. By way of example, it wasn’t until as recently as 1984 that the Italian astronomer and mathematician, Galileo Galilei, was pardoned by Pope John Paul II. In 1616 Galileo was brought before the Inquisition. His crimes you may be wondering? This ‘giant of history’ merely built a telescope and peered through its lens to discover a universe far richer and much more remarkable than the Church had ever or could ever have imagined.

Galileo revealed our galaxy in stunning detail, and made the simple observation that the planet Saturn had numerous satellites caught in its orbit. This, of course, strongly hinted at confirmation of Nikolai Kopernik’s heliocentric solar system. The problem for Galileo, however, was that during his lifetime the accepted dogma of the Church was centered on the concept of a geocentric solar system, or earth-centered. Once again, the prudent and assiduous mind of the scientist was correct. I wish to be counted among the many who have previously given their praise and thanks to the brave and conscientious men named Galileo and Copernicus, but this is to name but a few of history’s great minds. These men possessed the requisite courage to stand firm against ignorance and tyranny, but they also set the stage for human enlightenment and rapid scientific understanding.

In retrospect, when one peers through the lens of time one begins to understand both the tremendous and influential role the Church has played, but also sees its uninhibited cruelty and insatiable desire for control; especially the flow of knowledge and scientific education. One could point to a litany of the Church’s scientific errors, logical fallacies and its deplorable cruelty, and only then begin to hint at the lengths its purveyors have gone to maintain their influence. It is to this end – especially in light of modern scientific understanding – that those of us who value freedom and democracy must wholeheartedly and steadfastly reject spurious notions such as Intelligent Design.

As we have seen, Intelligent Design Theory has most assuredly failed to establish itself as credible science; it has neglected to provide any convincing and testable supporting evidence, and it has gone so far as to bully itself into the forefront of public consciousness. But those who see value in unfettered scientific pedagogy must stand firm against the teaching of religion and pseudoscience; especially within our public school systems. To do so would not only undermine the tremendous political experiment our founders laid down over 230 years ago, but also our future. Otherwise, if we allow such poppycock to be taught to our children, we will only see the continual and steady degradation of America’s scientific literacy, and, along with it, our standard of living and ability to compete within an ever-increasingly competitive global economy.

Is the riddle of God, Man, and World, then, so arcane? No! But no one wants to hear this; thus a secret it remains – Johann Wolfgang Goethe

Works Cited

Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. New York: Norton, 1996.

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion: New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2006.

Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. New York: Twelve, 2007.

http://archserve.id.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/Chronology/09_Potassium_Argon_Dating.html

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

Ingersoll, Robert. What’s God Got to do With it?: Hanover: Steer Forth Press, 2005.

Orwell, George. Why I Write. New York: Penguin Books, 2005.

Popkin, Richard and Stroll, Avrum. Philosophy Made Simple: New York: Doubleday, 1993.

Russell, Bertrand. Why I Am Not a Christian: New York: Touchstone, 1957.

Sagan, Carl. The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark: New York: Ballantine, 1996.

Scully, Sean: ‘Breathtaking Inanity’: How Intelligent Design Flunked Its Test Case: New York: Time Magazine, 2005.

Staguhn, Gerhard. God’s Laughter: Man and His Cosmos: New York: Harper Collins, 1992.