The ID Report

It is important that students bring a certain ragamuffin, barefoot, irreverence to their studies; they are not here to worship what is known, but to question it."
-- J. Bronowski, The Ascent of Man

Few topics in modern culture elicit the kind of polarized rhetoric endlessly cycled on the topic of intelligent design. More lively than abortion and more heated than global warming, discussion of intelligent design shows all the signs of an everlasting debate, a perpetual controversy eternally looping through the same arguments: Nature exhibits design and it could be intelligent design. No, intelligent design is not science, it is a religious concept, simply warmed-over creationism. But intelligent design is a scientific inference from observed design in nature, and does not seek to identify the designer. No, intelligent design is not science because it is not testable. Yes, design can be (and is) detected and tested by scientists in many disciplines, and the presence of design in nature gives rise to the logical inference of intelligent design. No, there is no evidence for intelligent design because evolution is a proven fact accepted by virtually all biologists. But evolution cannot account for information-rich complex structures. It doesn't matter, intelligent design is not science, it is a religious concept. And on and on (and on).

How can bitter debate turn to better discussion on such a topic? With both sides claiming the mantle of true science and each downplaying religious motivation, can there be any peaceful resolution? Perhaps not; lasting controversies usually last as controversies precisely because two opposing views cannot be completely reconciled. Short of resolution, however, can peaceful coexistence be achieved in a manner that will quiet passions, advance understanding and serve constitutionally safe pedagogical objectives? Yes, but ironically, making such peace virtually certain requires a small, common sense act sure to be resisted by the side set to profit most: permit voluntary teaching of intelligent design in public school science classrooms.

Before immediately dismissing the thought, take a deep breath and consider for a moment what really would happen if teachers who wished to were permitted, even encouraged, to supplement teaching of evolution with scientific evidence suggesting intelligent design and challenging Darwinism (those who say there is no such evidence are part of the problem). Ignore for a moment the hopelessly unhelpful jurisprudence of Constitutional church-speak. Ignore for a moment the carefully crafted definitions of philosophical science-speak. Ignore for a moment the bias of the heavily invested Darwin industry insisting on evolution consensus-speak. And imagine for a moment what might happen if on one supremely interesting controversial topic educating students became the primary goal of public education. What would happen?

Probably not much. At least not as long as the religiously offended few could forebear mind-broadening education for the tolerant many (as do the religiously offended many for the intolerant few today). How can we be sure? Because in addition to data from which to draw conclusions, we have common sense, which, sadly, gets lost in the ideologically motivated hyper-technical legal and linguistic minefield of the "creation vs. evolution" controversy. Consider this fact: there was a time not long ago when actual creationism was taught in science classes and in some regions the teaching of evolution was banned. Nevertheless, this period preceded the greatest scientific advances of the 20th-century and all the great scientists of the 20th-century. Those days are gone, replaced by a controversy manufactured and kept alive by extremists opposed to any non-Darwinian theory. At some point common sense must prevail to compel educators to understand from history that on controversial subjects rational discourse promotes education while censorship promotes divisive indoctrination.

Common sense in America can prevail only by first collectively rising above the silliness of believing that a Constitutional violation occurs every time an idea consonant with theistic religious belief is mentioned in science class. First Amendment Establishment Clause jurisprudence on this topic has reached virtual absurdity by any standard, with a federal judge in Pennsylvania recently finding the United States government breached the so-called "wall of separation" simply because a local school board required teachers to inform students of a library book on intelligent design. In a more sane time and under the same Constitution a state law banning evolution while permitting creationism was held not to violate the Constitution's Establishment Clause because Congress (of course) had not established a State religion. What a difference a few years make; today to require Thomas Jefferson's self-evident truth be taught would violate the Constitution. How can this be?

Missing from the legal front is a recognition that religious undertones are unavoidable on the subject of our origins and should not be the controlling factor in its public airing. No matter how the question "where do we come from?" is answered, the answer will always "aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another", to use the language of the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1968 case of Epperson v. Arkansas. In Epperson the Court held that an Arkansas law prohibiting the teaching of evolution while allowing teaching of creationism was an "advancement or inhibition of a religion" and therefore violated the Constitution's Establishment Clause. How is today's situation different in principle? While intelligent design is not the same as creationism, it's true that it "advances" theistic religious views to the detriment of atheistic religious views, such as those held by Secular Humanists. But a fact rarely acknowledged lurks behind the "neutral science" proponents of naturalistic evolution: Darwinism "advances" (and is in fact an official tenet of) atheistic religious views and, despite all rhetoric to the contrary, inhibits theistic religious views.

Secondly on our way to restoring common sense, we must recognize that the argument that intelligent design is "not science" because it is "not materialistic" (or "not naturalistic") depends upon a presupposition rapidly becoming untenable in light of modern evidence. Materialism (or, for our purposes, naturalism) is a philosophy that assumes all nature at all times operates solely according to unintelligent causal effects (i.e., creation is a result solely of mindless causes), regardless of contrary evidence. At best the "intelligent design is not science" argument can be maintained only by adhering to a narrow, closed definition of science based on the "mindless" philosophy of naturalism. But at that point the integrity of science is compromised, no longer abiding by the maxim "going wherever the evidence leads." Unapologetic materialist apologists proudly admit they will not go where the evidence leads, but must we all follow them? If so, then we must also admit we are not practicing the scientific method, but the method of a philosophical presupposition, a practice no different in kind than religion.

Third, we must deal with the fact that evolution represents the consensus viewpoint accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists. Ironically, this fact works in favor of teaching intelligent design for several reasons. First, if the consensus is, in fact, correct, then there should be no harm in simply providing an overview of a minority viewpoint that nevertheless raises fascinating, imagination-capturing questions about the role, and limits, of science. Moreover, because of the consensus there is not much to teach on the subject of intelligent design, which is a very young idea with no established curriculum, few robust constructs, and little in the way of laboratory research. Teaching on intelligent design could amount to little more than an hour or so reviewing the arguments and the evidentiary basis for its constructs, and, however wrong-headed it may appear to the consensus, on what basis its theorists maintain intelligent design as science.

Finally, the consensus view seems to be falling short on the very criteria deemed important by educators. The American public is constantly warned against the danger of teaching "intelligent design creationism" in the public schools because of test data showing Americans are falling behind the rest of the world in science literacy. But our current situation comes after a generation of consensus-only science education, and most of the rest of the world is also consensus-only. Might a change be in order? Could it be that open, honest discussion of a controversial topic that interests students spark a new interest in science? How could it not?

Above all, notwithstanding all the rhetoric, all the accusations and all the posturing, informing students of the state of the art in origins science and letting them make up their minds is the right thing to do. Leading atheist and Darwinist Richard Dawkins relates how after embracing Christianity for a time, in his mid-teens he made up his own mind and decided that "Darwinism was a far superior explanation that pulled the rug out from under the argument of design." If Richard Dawkins can be afforded the luxury of an informed choice, why not all students? Because regardless of the religious implications, and in spite of an imposed definitional bias, and no matter what consensus theories are implicated, the business of education is to educate.

Roddy Bullock is the Executive Director of the Intelligent Design Network of Ohio and is the author of The Cave Painting: A Parable of Science, published by and available from Access Research Network. Send comments to: roddybullock@idnetohio.com.

If you like this essay, go here for many more.

Copyright (c) 2008 Roddy M. Bullock, all rights reserved. Quotes and links permitted with attribution.

Publisher and agent inquiries welcome.