NEWS
Intelligent’ theory takes on evolution
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Rachel Patzer:
- Government group announces research guidelines (April 27, 2005)
- JFC scales back Doyle's hunting, fishing license fees (April 28, 2005)
- High court hears cap arguments (April 28, 2005)
- Green to run for governor (May 2, 2005)
- Edwards tours city's family center (April 4, 2005)
Related Stories:
- Religious course stresses mythology (November 29, 2005)
- Northwestern offers evolution minor (October 5, 2005)
- Ayala: Intelligent design incorrect (November 11, 2008)
- Representative drafts bill to ban Intelligent Design in science classrooms (February 8, 2006)
- Kansas leans away from evolution teaching (September 29, 2005)
Share This:
by Rachel Patzer
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
A school board ruling in Dover, Penn., last fall allowing high schools to teach a new theory of evolution, Intelligent Design, has attracted national attention.
Tuesday, Jan. 17, marks the first time Intelligent Design was taught in a biology classroom to high school students. The purpose of teaching this theory was to create a balanced science curriculum so students could learn about other existing theories as well as possible gaps in current evolutionary theory.
The difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design is a fine line. University of Wisconsin zoology professor Karen Steudal said Intellectual Design focuses on “irreducible complexity,” which is the idea that certain biological processes are too complicated to be explained through natural selection.
Proponents of Intellectual Design say scientists do not completely understand evolution, and they question how life forms could be so complex without an “intellectual designer.”
Creationism, on the other hand, is adherence to Genesis in the Bible, according to Steudal. Creationists have twice failed to convince the U.S. Supreme Court that Creationism is a valid scientific theory. Many say Intellectual Design is Creationist’s next hope for their curriculum, and that the theory is just another name for creation science.
Shortly after the school board decided to teach the theory alongside evolution, parents of a Dover student sought counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union to challenge the ruling. Currently, the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Pepper Hamilton LLP law firm are preparing for a Sept. 26 trial.
Jason Potrykus, a senior majoring in biology at Edgewood College, a Catholic college in Madison, said he thinks Intelligent Design should be taught in science classes.
“I think [teaching Intelligent Design] would be a great idea,” he said. “Students should get both sides of every story, both religious and scientific.”
Evolution and Creationism are not absolutely contradictory, according to Pope John Paul II, who issued the Catholic Church’s position.
“It is not unreasonable to teach [Intelligent Design] as a theory … it’s not a divine revelation; it’s simply a hypothesis from scientific evidence,” said Women Chaplain of St. Paul University Catholic Center Faye Darnall.
The Dover School Board began deliberating on the Creationism issue when they were in the process of approving a new biology textbook, according to Pepper Hamilton LLP Lawyer Eric Rothschild, who is a lawyer for one of the plaintiffs.
One of the school board members was upset with the textbook because it was “laced with Darwinism,” according to Rothschild.
The ACLU successfully defended a Tennessee teacher charged with teaching evolution in a 1925 case, which set the precedent for teaching evolutionary theory in science classes. Since that trial, debate has continued between proponents of both Evolution and Creation.
“Scientists aren’t saying religion is false, it just cannot be tested,” Steudal said. “So we scientists consider it completely unscientific.”
Pennsylvania is not the only state mounting arguments on the issue. In Wisconsin, the Grantsburg School Board unanimously decided to teach additional theories alongside evolution last summer, with much controversy following their decision.
Some wonder whether the debate will ever be over, and what the consequences are in the meantime.
“You hear a lot in the news about the U.S. falling behind in science and math achievement … and when [teachers] mislead students about science concepts [they] are contributing to the problem,” Rothschild said.
Anonymous (January 25, 2005 @ 8:09am):
You need testable theories before you can claim to enter a scientific debate. Poking holes in something as complicated as evolution is perfectably acceptable, but criticism does not make a theory. How do ID folks intend to test the hypothesis of "irreducable complexity"?
Until this question can be answered, even marginally, there aren't "two sides to the story," and ID just remains a gloss for those so tied to a literal conception of the Bible that they feel science threatens their faith.
Anonymous (January 25, 2005 @ 8:36am):
Attention fundies: If you're looking for a reporter to mindlessly parrot your biblical condemnation of dirty sodomites, Rachel Patzer's your gal!
Anonymous (January 25, 2005 @ 10:43am):
In the article, the attorney interviewed makes this statement "You hear a lot in the news about the U.S. falling behind in science and math achievement ... and when [teachers] mislead students about science concepts [they] are contributing to the problem."
I find this an interesting statement because science is based on assumptions. Scientists make assumptions (hyptothesis) and they test them to see if they can accurately predict a result in a given environment. That is why the best that science can give us is theory. Over time, these theories are developed and changed as science evolves and discovers more information.
Unfortunately, what is actually theory (evolution) has been taught as fact. The intelligent design argument does not mean that evolution didn't happen. It is a theory that attempts to answer some of the questions that strict evolution cannot answer. To say that there is no room in the scientific community for that kind of theory to be discussed seems rather fundamentalist to me.
Anonymous (January 25, 2005 @ 3:40pm):
A few points.
1) You don't need to provide an alternative theory to criticize an existing theory even if that criticism states, as ID theorists do with naturalistic evolution, that that theory fails to explain the evidence. It helps to persuade people, but it isn't necessary for the criticism to be successful.
2) Even still, it is possible to test for design. SETI does this, and it is considered scientific. William Dembski has written a book entitled _The Design Inference_ that establishes criteria for detecting design. So the "it's not science cause it's not testable" line is misinformed.
3) It doesn't really fit to lump Intelligent Design in with Scopes Trial creationism. Traditional creationism holds to a young earth and a worldwide flood. ID doesn't. Furthermore, many leading ID theorists have respectable academic credentials, not typical of young earth creationists. For example, Dembski's book was published by Cambridge University Press, and Michael Behe is a tenured biochemist at Lehigh University, a research university.
4) The Intelligent Design movement was spawned in many ways by a book by Michael Denton-- _Evolution: A Theory in Crisis_. Denton was (and may still be as far as I know) an agnostic.
5) Antony Flew, a 20th century atheist icon, recently came to believe in a god/designer after concluding that DNA required design.
ID deserves serious consideration within the academic world.
Anonymous (January 25, 2005 @ 3:53pm):
My main concern with teaching intelligent design in a high school setting is in large part a) who is teaching it and b) where it is being taught. Our teachers as a whole are a great bunch who work very hard, but they are not researchers. Furthermore, dependant on a teacher's personal beliefs and the beliefs of the area in which ID is taught, it could come very close to being taught as a creationist theory. There are some theories that may just be better taught at a higher level.
Anonymous (January 25, 2005 @ 7:23pm):
re: Antony Flew
Doen't at all sound like the "Intelligent Designer" (aka god) that the people pushing this crap have in mind.
ps. Note that the "God" of the Founding Fathers was not the Judeo-Christian God.
***
"Rather, he would only have in mind "the non-interfering God of the people called Deists--such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin."
http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369
Anonymous (January 26, 2005 @ 4:27pm):
Advocates of Intelligent Design think biology provides convincing reasons to believe in a creator, i.e. a Deist-type god. Many also believe that that god has the more specific qualities of the Judeo-Christian God, but they don't (again, as far as I know) think that biology provides convincing reasons to believe in the Judeo-Christian God. It is necessary that God be a creator but it is not necessary and sufficient. They all probably have other reasons for that additional belief. My point is that if Antony Flew was convinced then this "crap" can't be dogmatically dismissed. Would you agree?
