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.
