Intelligent Design: What is it? And why should I care?

Perhaps you are simply wondering, "What's up with this Sunday's episode of 'The Simpsons'?" But a real hot-button issue in the United States right now is about the adequacy of evolution and the religious nature of Intelligent Design, a popular alternate idea to the theory of natural selection. Some schools allow ID to be taught as science, while others insist the discussion of divine intervention violates the so-called "separation of church and state." So naturally, a Buddhist like Lisa Simpson would take offense at having what appears to be Christian theology taught to her in place of well-reasoned theory. As with any social debate, where do one student's rights end? And where do the next student's begin?

Essential Facts: Intelligent Design ("ID")

Intelligent Design is offered as a solution to evolution's problems.

The concept of Intelligent Design cites the possibility of a "guiding hand" in the origin of life on earth. Specifically, Intelligent Design asserts that organisms are too "irreducibly complex" to have evolved unaided.
Intelligent Design differs from creation as described in the Bible. "Intelligent Design" is the moniker of an idea that is theological, but not specific to one religion. For instance, the "Designer" is never named, and his intentions are never described.
By NOT relying on religious texts as evidence, proponents of Intelligent Design are trying to incite scientific accountability for flaws in the theory of evolution.

Intelligent Design, like evolution, cannot be proven true or false.

Contrary to the statements of many ID organizations, Intelligent Design is NOT a scientific theory. ID is not widely or universally accepted by scientists as an explanation of origin.
True science depends on the controlling and manipulating of single-variable situations, such as creating identical environments for test mice while only changing their food. Observation is not clear enough to count as "fact." This is why theories such as evolution or gravitation (gravity) can be observed, but not proven. For the same reason, ID cannot be definitely proven.
When evolution falls short of an explanation (i.e. the "Missing Link"), ID is offered as a potential answer, but there appears to be no way to test this.

The logo representing the views of the Intelligent Design Network, the foremost organization for critics of Darwin's ideas.

The Access Research Network, The IDEA Center and The Center For Science and Culture are all major advocates of Intelligent Design, especially in the context of challenging evolution's reputation as a stable or legitimate theory.

Essential Facts: Natural Selection (Evolution)

Charles Darwin pioneered the concept of "natural selection."

His ideas, published in The Origin of Species, were not intended to discredit religion, but waves of debate quickly divided public opinion into pro- or anti-creationism.
The trial of John Scopes in 1925 was undoubtedly a landmark case in a shift in public education: From enforced religion to enforced tolerance. The science was not the social issue.
Darwin's idea of "natural selection," loosely referred to as "survival of the fittest" by others, had other incarnations. In the 1890s, the concept of "Social Darwinism" emerged to explain the sociopolitical advantages some people had over others.

The theory of evolution itself is itself evolving.

It took Darwin from 1836 to 1859 to develop and publish his thoughts on Natural Selection, though the concept was brewing for thousands of years prior.
Since Darwin, the ideas of micro- and macro-evolution have been considered separate due to differences in observed behaviors under a microscope and in the world at large.
Evolution does not specifically deny the possibility of Intelligent Design or creation, but the amount of time required for species mutation and adaptation could not occur over 6000 years, let alone the six days described in the Bible.

The HMS Beagle, the ship on which Charles Darwin traveled the world and collected scientific observations, leading directly to his ideas on the Origin of Species. The ship has become a symbol of budding knowledge in the world of science (and the mark of a crazy adventurer among anti-evolutionists.)

Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin was also a respected scientist during the Enlightenment, a period of intense reasoning in western Europe. He and Jean-Baptiste Lamarck were known to speculate that life forms had developed from a single, simpler origin.

Essential Facts: Biblical Creation

Religion is a point of confusion.

Specific religion (Christianity and its variations) should not be a factor in a true debate about the plausibility of ID, but due to frequent comparisons and associations with religion, ID must be carefully distinguished.
Christianity was and is the most popular religion in the United States. With a vast majority of Americans identifying themselves as Christian, they have tremendous influence over the politics of education.
The First Amendment to the Constitution has been used to argue for AND against the inclusion of religious material in public classrooms.

Creationism is by far the longest-standing collective belief about the origins of life on earth, as well as the earth itself. The common roots of Christianity, Judaism and Islam hold that man was created by a single divine being, one who created the earth for His purpose. This image is a section of Michaelangelo's work on the Sistine Chapel. It depicts God reaching out to Adam, the first man, and Adam lazily responding.

Answers in Genesis is an up-to-the-minute site about creationism, evangelism and the preservation of the Christian tradition by debunking the claims of science. Although Intelligent Design was what was officially proposed to the Kansas Board of Education, many supporters saw ID as a stepping stone to their Christian faith.

News Updates

Currently, the Kansas Board of Education has taken no steps to reverse its recent decision to redefine "science" and mandate the challenging of evolution in classrooms. The Dover decision in 2005 involved a Lutheran judge who found no fundamental difference between ID and creationism, so Pennsylvania schools will not be answering science questions with "God did it" anytime soon. Although many school districts consider their science programs in a limbo of debate, there has been little immediate change due to backlash against the Kansas Board's new standards.

Anything to do with Intelligent Design is making headlines in the United States these days. Google Trends suggests otherwise, except for spiked interest when the Dover trial was news.

History of the Debate

Religion and scientific thought have both existed as long as man has, whether that means six thousand years or far longer. In modern times, literacy and burgeoning populations have expanded the issue a thousandfold; we are living in the first era in which religion is not considered infallible or essential for survival. This is a safer time in which to explore our origins, but controversy is unavoidable.

The shift in American culture is from an unspoken national religion (Protestant Christianity) to the contradicting goals of wholesome tradition (again, Christianity) while encouraging competitive progress for the sake of industry and innovation. If Americans want to be trained as citizens of the world, not egocentric hicks-from-the-sticks, they will see the Kansas decision to redefine "science" as a large step backward from said progress. So far, national ridicule of Kansans has ensued. At the same time, religious activists are claiming undue persecution.

Modern people, particularly in Western or other educated cultures, are equipped to form and express their own opinions and to do their own research. The following are seemingly benign settings for very heated, personal opinions:

This parody comic asserts that Creationism and Intelligent Design are, in fact, the same thing. It argues that religion (specifically Christianity) is inherent in both. [click for larger image at its source]

A satirical image from The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a website that parodies the religious undertones of the Intelligent Design argument. The childish drawing suggests the immaturity of the ID argument. The real Creation Museum in Kentucky may also be a target of this picture.

At the 1925 Scopes trial, teacher John Scopes was considered a criminal for spreading ideas that contradicted a literal reading of the Bible. It entered the national conscience that Biblical creation and the theory of evolution could not coexist. The poster on building says, "Read Your Bible." Image archived in the University of Missouri- Kansas City Law School faculty pages.

Supernatural causes aside, this comic demonstrates the primary strategy of creationists and supports of ID: To highlight the weaknesses of evolutionary thought in the search for truth, not merely satisfactory information.

Introduction

In the conflict over the requiring of the theory of evolution in science curricula, one could find irony in how little the arguments of the parties within the conflict have evolved. In 1859, naturalist Charles Darwin first published The Origin of Species, which contained his ideas on what he called the “Natural Selection” (Darwin) of superior traits in species over time. In 1925, Tennessee schoolteacher John Scopes was tried for teaching Darwin’s ideas in class “because it was at odds with a literal reading of the Biblical creation story” (Jacoby). In 1999, the Kansas Board of Education “deleted most references to evolution in the science standards” (Associated Press), a decision that was overturned in 2001. Finally, in 2005, the same Kansas Board of Education amended the same science standards to say that Kansas students must still “understand major evolutionary concepts” (Associated Press) for state testing, but also to say that Darwin’s theory has been “challenged in recent years” (Associated Press). But the reason why the Kansas Board of Education has chosen to act now is a mystery—essentially, and ironically, the three major blocs within the debate over education in Kansas are the same factions who arose when Darwin’s hypothesis was first discussed: The faithful believers in Darwin, who trust his theory as the best explanation for the origins of life on earth; the skeptics, who question the research behind, or credibility of, evolution as an origins theory; and the religious groups who refer to their First Amendment right in the U.S. Constitution to believe, teach and learn any origin theory they believe is valid.

The Kansas Board of Education has confronted this conflict and has made a decision its members feel is in the best interest of Kansas students’ education. Now the decision has inspired similar actions in other school districts—“the dispute over evolution is simmering on the local level in 20 states” (Wilgoren). Given the possible national impact, should the Kansas Board of Education have changed its standards of science pertaining to evolution in November of 2005 because the theory is flawed or unproven, because the introduction of the concept of Intelligent Design would be beneficial and thought-provoking to students, and because mandatory evolution education denies students their First Amendment right to freedom of religion; or should the Kansas Board of Education have exclusively mandated evolution education as an origin theory because it is a well-accepted theory, because unsupported concepts such as Intelligent Design should be discouraged to prevent confusion in students, or because the way the Kansas Board of Education has modified the definition of “science” is a danger to scientific accuracy?

Background Information and Public Policy Overview

The exact public policy at stake is the Kansas Board of Education’s accepted standards of science, a document containing school science regulations affecting mandatory school science curricula across the state of Kansas. In May of 2005, the Kansas Board of Education chose a “minority report” committee to make a new draft of these standards which “calls for changing the definition of science and for students to study evolution from a more critical point of view” (Sheppard). This new draft of standards was soon adopted and implemented in November of 2005. So when the Board’s position on the challenging of evolution was first enacted, students through the twelfth grade in Kansas public began to be instructed to consider evolution as only one possible origin of life.

The explanation for the controversy over the Board’s decision lies in the perspectives of three key groups: Those who believe evolution is valid enough to be taught as legitimate science, those who don’t, and those who support origin theories based on religion, a belief protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The first group consists largely of scientists and science organizations, who argue that evolutionary theory is by far the best explanation for the origin of life on Earth, despite the fact that it is essentially unverifiable. Politically, they are of the opinion that the introduction of such concepts as Intelligent Design demonstrates a “disregard for consensus and expertise” (Costello) among scientists, as well as a “substitution of ideological allegiance for careful assessment” (Costello). Supporters of evolutionary theory are not so much concerned with the debating of religious ideas, but with the relaxing of science standards—if the definition of a “fact” shifts towards the interpretation of observations and away from the testing of hypotheses, the prestigious label of “theory” could be cheapened, or at least become less than airtight. Then, if scientific standards are widely relaxed across the nation, a generation of American students could become less competitive in the world of biomedical innovation due to “blur[ing] the distinction between science and theology by teaching or presenting non-scientific beliefs in science classrooms” (“BPS”). So, in a nutshell, pro-evolutionists want the Kansas School Board to reconsider its amendments because of the possible snowball effect of cheapening what is perceived as accurate science. The pro-evolution group includes many concerned individuals and such key players as the National Science Board, the American Medical Association and the Biophysical Society.

The second group also consists mainly of concerned individuals and groups who are not necessarily religious in their motivations, but they all see enough flaws in the theory of evolution to be concerned about its exclusive situation in science classes. Because evolution is not known to occur on a “macro” (or trans-species) level, the challengers of evolution see value in allowing non-evolutionary ideas to be considered in public schools as well, for a healthy comparison. “Teach the controversy” is the popular term for this idea; it is reported that “President Bush endorsed teaching intelligent design alongside evolution” (Associated Press) in August of 2005 for this very reason. Challengers of evolution focus primarily on the aspects of evolution that are not infallible in order to justify their position. Also, they cite the fact that few reputable evolutionary theorists would argue that it is a faultless, complete or all-encompassing theory. As Darwin himself wrote in his landmark publication The Origin of Species, “This Abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect” (Darwin), because perfection isn’t possible. To put it simply, secular challengers of evolution largely approve of the Board’s new science standards because it would be intellectually unsafe to teach a theory as an unquestioned fact. The key players in this group largely work for or support either the Discovery Institute or the Intelligent Design Network, which is run by John Calvert.

The third group in the Kansas controversy consists of advocates of religion, predominantly parents and leaders from Christian organizations. This group also supports the relaxing of scientific standards, but unlike the challengers of evolution, they are completely against the teaching of evolution in public schools and they support their right to deny its possible existence. They also see flaws in ideas related to evolution that are also generally accepted among scientists; for example, they typically question the estimated age of the earth, saying “evolutionary assumptions that rock layers, fossils and radioactive dating reflect a millions-of-years timeframe are inevitably going to encounter contrary evidence” (“Focus”). Anti-evolutionists often claim there is a wide desire for reform in science education—according to “a recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Science… 64 percent of respondents support teaching creationism side by side with evolution in the science curriculum of public schools” (Costello). The primary goal of anti-evolutionists is not indubitably to have students learn about “a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation” (Associated Press), but really to ensure that their beliefs about the origin of the universe are respected. To do this, they insist that students not be exposed to the potentially confusing theory of evolution at school, or at least have the choice to be excused from learning about it. The bottom line is that anti-evolutionists simply do not want Christian students to be forced to participate in a belief that the students may not share: That evolution is the best (or only) explanation for the existence and diversity of life on Earth. The key players in this group are mainly churches, individuals, and creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis, which is led by Ken Ham and Dr. Monty White.

Sociological Analysis

Conflict theory: values and perspectives

The debate over evolution’s place in science classrooms is more social than scientific in nature; it falls squarely under the category of sociological conflict theory, which states that a clashing difference in values and perspectives is causing the friction and progress in society, unlike the concept of functionalism, by which the differences between people would be explained as necessary cogs in a social machine. Among Kansas students, families, and educators, there is a clearly divided and long-standing clash over how the origin of life should be explained in publicly-funded, secular classes full of minors; hence, the three groups described in the previous section of this paper.

Pro-evolutionists honestly believe that evolution is the only origin possibility that is legitimate enough to be taught in a classroom. As written by laboratory researcher Frederick Sweet: “Based on our findings, man and monkeys must have had a common ancestor at some point in their evolutionary development. Creationists don’t want to know this” (Sweet).

Challengers of evolution say that evolution has only been observed in the short term, and therefore is not adequate in fully explaining the biological diversity on Earth, or even theoretically explaining it. As John Calvert asked in his closing statement at the Kansas Evolution Hearings, “Thomas Huxley once said science commits suicide when it adopts a creed. . . There is a creed involved in this debate. Evolution cannot be criticized” (Calvert).

Finally, anti-evolutionists believe the theory of evolution is inherently secular, and so the actual conflict, in this group’s perspective, is over their First Amendment right to religious freedom and freedom of speech in public classrooms. Anti-evolutionists in Kansas are almost exclusively Christian: “Starting from the Bible, we know that God originally created everything very good, but that death and suffering entered the world as a result of man's rebellion” (“Focus”).

Essentially, the debate over the origin science taught in Kansas schools is a conflict of unity and diversity—supporters of Darwin’s basic concepts wish the theory of evolution to be taught uniformly, because it is a rational theory, and those who are skeptical or doubtful about evolution wish for their own theories to be added to science curricula in the interest of fairness, scientific criticism or higher standards of thought.

Family values vs. school environment

There is concern, however, that the larger issue is not over the accuracies and assumptions of science, but over the right to deny what is a generally accepted theory. Many Kansas students are encouraged by their families to embrace their religious (or nonreligious) heritage, and so the religious families are less worried about the scientific plausibility of Intelligent Design than their own right to support the movement from a religious standpoint.

Pro-evolutionists mainly argue that only science should be taught in science classes, and that Intelligent Design is merely a front for Biblical creationist ideas, which are in fact religious, not scientific. In general, pro-evolutionists have no problem with the discussing of religion in non-science classes, but it is because the facts in those classes are not based on the scientific method. According to Manhattan-Ogden board member Beth Tatarko, “You watch presentations, you listen to the speakers, you really press them on the issue, and it [Intelligent Design] is about religion” (Lyon). Essentially, this change in the school environment is why the Manhattan-Ogden school district became the first district to reject Kansas’ new school science standards in February of 2006.

Counteracting the media’s influence

There is likely a pro-evolution or secular bias in the American media, which involves all the newspapers, magazines, television shows, websites, advertisements and other publications that Americans are increasingly exposed to. So, understandably, the challengers of evolution are afraid that their last chance to keep their children unprejudiced about the origins of life is in science classes. They argue that because evolution cannot be proven, it would be an unhealthy scientific practice to not consider its shortcomings on school time. “Eighty years ago, the thought controllers wanted no Darwin; today's thought controllers want only Darwin. In both cases, the dominant attitude is authoritarian and closed-minded” (Jacoby).

Separation of church and state

Proponents of Biblical creation (anti-evolutionists) and pro-evolutionists have a surprising similarity: Both groups believe that Intelligent Design (as proposed by the third set of players in this debate) is simply a Trojan Horse for the Christian belief of creation as described in the Bible: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (“The Beginning”). Promoting religion in a public school classroom would violate what Jefferson described as “[the] wall of separation between Church and State” (Jefferson, qtd. in “The Myth”)—or more specifically, the Constitution’s ban on the establishment of religion by an act of Congress. If religion begins to be established in public schools, there could be a snowball-like effect across the nation, leading other institutions to endorse religion, or at least the criticism of evolution. The only major difference between the pro- and anti-evolutionists, then, is that the pro-evolutionists view the establishment of religion as a wholly negative change in society, whereas the anti-evolutionists might even embrace it.

Advocates of Intelligent Design and other challengers of evolution believe that their philosophy is thoroughly divested of any religious promotion, and believe that it is scientifically possible that an unnamed creator could be responsible for the limitations of evolutionary theory. Thus, they hope to validate Intelligent Design, bringing it from “the realm of faith” (“BPS”) to “the realm of science” (“BPS”) without establishing a particular religion in the process.

Economic Analysis

Opportunity costs

Opportunity costs, or the options one forgoes when making a decision, naturally vary by which choice one would make—to allow the teaching of alternate origin concepts in science classrooms, or to forbid it. Pro-evolutionists believe the most significant cost of allowing alternate concepts in classrooms is the devaluing of science: Lowering standards to allow faulty assumptions to be identified as fact. As Professor H. Allen Orr writes, “Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design’s arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science” (Orr).

Challengers of evolution believe that far more hazardous is the teaching of an unproven theory as undisputed truth. This is why they advocate the introduction of alternate concepts of origin—only presenting one theory would be essentially brainwashing students, causing them to believe that ideas with many theoretical holes in them are acceptable explanations for natural phenomena. The opportunity cost here is the loss of an open mind, or a sense of unfinished business in the world of research. According to John Calvert of the Intelligent Design Network, “Public education [should] be a vehicle that informs, rather than indoctrinates” (“IDnet”).

Finally, anti-evolutionists believe that the ultimate cost of teaching evolution as the only explanation for life on Earth is that their religious beliefs are belittled, neglected or criticized. The cost of banning Intelligent Design in classrooms is that religion, particularly Christianity, would be seen as defunct or ridiculous by the next generation of students due to the promotion of atheistic principles in science classrooms.

The economics of government-funded education: what to produce?

As with any government-sponsored program, the purpose of (compulsory) education is to produce responsible citizens who will perpetuate and improve the nation as a whole, as opposed to being a burden on the state or reducing the United States’ competitiveness in the modern world. So the question is, what sort of graduates should the nation’s high schools produce? Should teenagers who enter college and the workforce believe that evolution is the best explanation for life on earth, or should they believe that the answer is not (or cannot be) known?

Given that court cases such as Brown v. Board of Education demonstrate that segregation of any kind is innately unequal, no department associated with public education would endorse that some schools teach only evolution while others teach alternate theories in addition to evolution. So the government perspective, particularly at the national level, cannot exist in shades of gray for long.

Teaching alternate origin concepts would demonstrate the government’s desire for students to be religiously tolerant, scientifically open-minded and a symbol of the United States’ historically progressive way of life, befitting of what poet Francis Scott Key once described as “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” President Bush has already stated that he supports those who would introduce alternate origin concepts in science classes, and by signing into law such initiatives as the No Child Left Behind Act, the trend seems to be towards uniting the standards of U.S. schools, which have long been decentralized by state or city.

On the other hand, Kansas School District 383 became the first Kansas district to reject the Kansas Board of Education’s new science standards because they believe the new standards would actually reduce business in Kansas and lessen America’s role in the world of science and technology. According to the Kansas State resolutions, “The Kansas State Board of Education standards have created enormous negative publicity, which threatens the efforts of K-State and local businesses to recruit qualified professionals… Concern exists that U.S. students are falling farther and farther behind in world norms” (Lyon).

Education as a scarce resource

Because education is mandated by law in the United States for persons under the age of 16 in most states, demand for quality public education is essentially inelastic, meaning students will continue to attend tax- or individually-funded schools no matter what the standards of science are therein.

However, private schools have historically existed in the U.S. as an alternative to public schools, which vary in quality. Customers—parents of students—can choose to enroll their children in a private school because they perceive it to have a higher quality of education, a better learning environment, or a tradition of teaching beliefs similar to what parents would like to reinforce at home, i.e. a particular religion or magnet-school focus. Regarding the former, only 15.7% of private schools in the United States were considered “nonsectarian” in a 2000 survey by the U.S. Census Bureau (“Private”). But the enrollment at conservative Christian schools increased by 46% from 1990 to 2000 (“Private”), and enrollment at all private elementary and secondary schools increased 18% from 1988 to 2001 (“Private”). So, economically speaking, the supply for (primarily Christian) private schools has increased to cater to the increasing demand for these schools. Therefore, due to this recent increase in the perception that a secular, public education is inferior to a religious, private one, one can infer that a private, religious education was recently, and may be currently, a scarce resource.

The introduction of Intelligent Design or even religious ideas into Kansas public school science classes could cause a shift in demand in private schools, particularly if public schools across the nation adopt new science standards based on the precedent set by the Kansas Board of Education. If more religious parents approve of the origin-of-life concepts their students would encounter in public schools, they may no longer be motivated to pay extra money to send their children to a religious private school. Similarly, if parents wishing their kids to be taught only evolution in their science class discussions grow frustrated with their public school’s new approach to the origins of life, they may join others in seeking a nonsectarian private school to enroll their children in, because they would consider the tradeoff of tuition fees for Darwinian thinking worthwhile. The enrollment at nonsectarian private schools would increase, and the current situation could potentially reverse itself.

Concerning the allotment (or distribution) of scarce resources, a scarcity of evolutionary criticism in public schools motivated the challengers of evolution to demand evolutionary criticism in schools, which ultimately led the Kansas Board of Education to supply it. The Board believed the tradeoff (or exchange of one resource for another) of approval from the nation’s major science organizations in exchange for the criticism of evolutionary theory in science classes was worthwhile.

In summary, education is not necessarily considered scarce in the United States, but quality education (or education tailored to one’s viewpoint) is a scarce resource.

Public Policy Analysis

Manifest and latent functions of changing the definition of science

The manifest function, or primary or intended outcome, of the Kansas Board of Education’s decision to change the state science standards was (and is) to spur debate in Kansas science classes about the origins of life on earth. This decision favored the group associated with secular Intelligent Design advocacy (frequently referred to in this document as the “challengers of evolution”) because it aligned itself with this group’s belief that evolutionary theory is not infallible. The Board’s decision was intended to repair a negative latent function once perpetuated by the former evolution-only policy—the ignoring of all possibilities unrelated to the theory of evolution when instructing or reading in class. According to Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby, “In truth, intelligent design isn't a scientific theory but a restatement of a timeless argument: that the regularity and laws of the natural world imply a higher intelligence—God, most people would say—responsible for its design” (Jacoby).

The group of people who are entirely against the required teaching of evolution also approve of the Board’s decision. Because the decision allows for speculation about Intelligent Design’s role in the origin of life, the next logical step to consider in science classes is outright creation, or the possibility that evolution (or even time as it is currently measured) is only an illusion. This group values religious beliefs over scientific accuracy, unlike the other two groups. According to Answers in Genesis President Ken Ham, “If we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present?” (Ham)

However, the primary latent function of the current, revised science standards in Kansas is the one of greater concern to pro-evolutionists: The potential corruption of scientific conclusions through standards they believe to be lax, or at least lacking. According to a statement by the National Science Board, “The Kansas action removed a key element from the body of scientific knowledge that schoolchildren need to learn and, in so doing, diminished the quality of education that they are likely to receive” (United States). The pro-evolution group, then, predicts a negative impact on the future of education and scientific research in the United States, unlike the challengers of evolution, who expect science education to improve in Kansas as a result of the new standards.

Policy impacts

Quite simply, if the new science standards from the Kansas decision are mimicked throughout United States public schools, the ultimate impact will be social—with each new generation of students, it will gradually become a social norm to believe that evolution is not credible science at work, or that Intelligent Design is the most apt explanation for the theory’s weaknesses.

Again, two of the key groups in this debate value this as a positive result, whereas the third—the pro-evolutionists—believe that students should be taught that the theory of evolution has more integrity than the new science standards suggest. They expect that the danger of changing the science standards for minors (students under the age of 18) is that they may not be compelled to impartiality on the subject when they are eventually old enough to have a larger impact on the issue of challenging evolution in classrooms, through votes, petitions, or joining the Board of Education themselves.

Regarding the actual Kansas standards, “The board does not mandate what will be taught to public school students; that decision is left to local school boards. However, it does determine what students are expected to know for state assessment tests” (Associated Press). So the funding needed for the changes will be minimal, and the new standards are carefully worded enough to resist accusations of impartiality. This means that the probability that the new science standards will take effect as scheduled in 2008 is very likely.

Special interest groups

Special interest groups—or groups that form to direct money and resources toward a single issue or cause, but are not lobbyists or political parties—were chiefly responsible for repeatedly bringing the matter of evolution’s place in schools to the attention of the Kansas Board of Education. This process of petitioning the government (a right guaranteed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) is similar to an Iron Triangle, wherein interest groups hire lobbyists to persuade members of Congress to legislate and fund their cause, thus ultimately paying off the interest group and the lobbyist while rewarding the representative with support in the next election.

In the Kansas situation, the Board of Education decided that the best way to resolve the question of evolution’s status as a satisfactory origin theory was to hold a multiple-day hearing in May of 2005. John Calvert, who gave the final closing statement of the hearings, is an example of a person who functions as a lobbyist would to promote the viewpoint of an interest group, in this case the Intelligent Design Network, which he runs and represents. The Kansas Board of Education is comprised of elected individuals, each of which could have been swayed to vote a particular way on the promise of support for reelection. Money was not nearly as crucial for the Board’s decision as it is for most Congressional acts, so the comparison is lost on this point. However, the Intelligent Design Network and other challengers of evolution did successfully convince the Board to revise their science standards, which accomplished the Intelligent Design Network’s goal to increase tolerance for their viewpoint in public classrooms. In a press release, the Intelligent Design Network stated that “The changes will inform students about the science of origins rather than indoctrinate them in materialism, a philosophy that is at the core of non-theistic religious beliefs” (“IDnet”).

Why I Support Evolution Exclusively

So, given all of the preceding information, should the Kansas Board of Education have changed its standards of science pertaining to evolution in November of 2005 because (1) the theory is flawed or unproven, because (2) the introduction of the concept of Intelligent Design would be beneficial and thought-provoking to students, and because (3) mandatory evolution education denies students their First Amendment right to freedom of religion; or should the Kansas Board of Education have exclusively mandated evolution education as an origin theory because (4) it is a well-accepted theory, because (5) unsupported concepts such as Intelligent Design should be discouraged to prevent confusion in students, or because (6) the way the Kansas Board of Education has modified the definition of “science” is a danger to scientific accuracy?

I believe the Kansas Board of Education made a grave error in deciding to change their standards of science. The members should have voted to exclusively mandate the teaching of evolution as the origin of life and its diversity. The following points, taken from the above thesis question, coupled with the information from the previous sections will solidly support my claim:

(1 and 4) The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is essentially untestable on anything but a microscopic level, yet it has still managed to achieve the prestigious scientific label of “theory,” a label that concepts such as Intelligent Design are far from attaining. The so-called holes in the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection refer to its inability to be completely proven. We obviously cannot re-experience the origins of life to conclude its reliance on natural selection to produce dominant traits.

In common usage, a “theory” could refer to a vague speculation or idea, but in the scientific fields, the term refers to natural laws that are impossible to prove true but are so prominent that they are unlikely to ever suggest inaccuracy. For example, the theory of relativity, atomic theory, the kinetic theory of gases, gravity, cell theory (biology), plate tectonics, continental drift, chaos theory, number theory, probability theory, global warming, the extreme value theorem (statistics), acoustic theory and even music theory are all scientifically sturdy theories that cannot be proven by the scientific method, because this would require impossible testing scenarios. Yet these theories can be observed in nature, because they are the very foundations of nature and science. For example, a foolish person can deny the existence of continental drift, but that won’t stop the earthquakes from happening.

(6) The reason that these many theories are not simply labeled as “facts” is that this would be cheating the scientific method, which states that truth can only be derived from repeated, controlled experiments in which only one independent variable is adjusted for observation. Therefore, by removing the precise nature of this definition from their science standards, the Kansas Board of Education has indeed corrupted the reasoning of science into mere conjecture. Ironically, without the protection of fact from fiction, evolution would still be considered the truest of all origin possibilities due to the tremendous correlative evidence supporting it; the new standards describe science as a search for the best answer, not necessarily the correct one.

When speculation becomes acceptable in Kansas schools in 2008, students will essentially be able to “prove” in their classrooms that both of the “theories”—Intelligent Design and evolution—can be considered a “more adequate explanation” for the origin of life. Not only are the new standards hypocritical, sloppy and unscientific, but they specifically weaken evolution among the many aforementioned theories to the point where an almost universally agreed-upon theory can be equated with the partisan beliefs of an obviously creationist organization that simply remains religiously neutral by not naming a possible creator. Speculation is not science, and the only “evidence” of Intelligent Design that has ever been offered for consideration is mostly just circumstantial evidence, evidence that demonstrates a temporary or unique weakness in evolutionary theory.

By fixing the definition of science, the correct definition will effectively remove and identify all shortcomings in any future scientific research. There is no downside to increased accuracy in science. This is how changing the Kansas standards back—back to what was once approved by all the major scientific organizations—will make this issue less of a problem.

(2 and 5) As with all current events, the Intelligent Design movement in Kansas should be discussed in classrooms nationwide. However, instead of teaching in science classes that Intelligent Design is possible and that evolution is flawed, the controversy over the origin of life should be discussed in social studies classes, philosophy classes and eventually history classes as what it really is: a conservative Christian backlash comparable to the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925. These people are a religious faction, and they believe their First Amendment rights allow them to force teachers to lie to their students about the way scientific research should properly be done.

After thoroughly examining my sources, some of the pro-evolution sources reasonably concluded that a non-literal reading of the Bible’s creation story could be reconciled with the theory of evolution, but every single source criticizing Darwin or proclaiming creationism outright was either run by or somehow associated with conservative Christian individuals, websites or organizations. What does this mean, exactly? It means that the “challengers of evolution” and the “anti-evolutionists,” as I began to refer to them in the “Background” section of this document, differ in name only. Their underlying motive is identical: To introduce the possibility of creation into classroom discussions about the origin of the species. I called this a “latent function” earlier in this document, but for these key groups, the creation agenda is a manifest function proposed for selfish, nonscientific reasons.

(3) Finally, religious ideas are neither fact nor theory, scientifically speaking. Scientists, geologists, anthropologists, forensic specialists and other experts have been investigating the truths and fictions of the Bible and other holy tomes since the Age of Reason, but have yet to uncover any solid evidence that a god or supernatural creator ever affected the earth. If there was evidence to find, scientists would be all over it.

Anyone in the United States can enjoy their First Amendment right to practice any religion instead of obeying the rules of an established one. And they can enjoy hearing about the creation as it was described in the book of Genesis in their homes and churches without interference. However, no one is allowed to require that any form of their beliefs be taught to minors in a secular learning environment associated with the Government of the United States. No one is excluded from the First Amendment.

Good Education Is Crucial For The Future American Society

Abandoning the pretenses of politically-correct wording, there are truthfully only two key players in the debate over teaching evolution in schools: Those who don’t see significant flaws in Darwin’s ideas, and those who are out to promote Biblical creation, whether by fanfare or subtlety. The only visible difference between the Intelligent Design advocates and evangelist zealots I’ve encountered in my research is that the Intelligent Design advocates will tactfully hint at the possible existence of God in the name of science, while the religious literalists will never bother using the word “science” at all. Intelligent Design supporters use God as a literal Deus ex Machina to oversimplify things by declaring that a Creator must exist because evolutionary theory may not be all-encompassing… or in other words, simple. After hundreds of years of brilliant researchers investigating every known facet of existence, a bunch of people in Kansas still think that the simple medieval explanation for the origins of life is sufficient, simply because it is old, traditional, and simple.

We must rescue the future of scientific research in the United States from the definition of “science” adopted by the Kansas Board of Education. If other states follow suit, the quality of science education in general, not just in origin theory, will drop, leading to poor preparation of students for colleges and universities and possibly causing the United States to fall behind in scientific, medical and technological research in the modern world.

I propose that we repeatedly petition the Kansas Board of Education until they agree to another hearing, one longer than the original four-day hearing if necessary. Pandora’s Box has been opened, but if the Kansas standards are revoked before they can be established as a precedent for other school boards, the damage to scientific research will be minimized. Yet if the honest scientists of the world allow this issue to cool down, it will soon become accepted, nay, expected, that scientific research cannot be fully trusted because it is partly based on assumptions. Medicine, technology, education, world relations—sooner or later, you will be involved.

Works Cited

Associated Press. "Proponents of intelligent design score big victory in Kansas." First Amendment Center 9 Nov. 2005. 18 Dec. 2005 Website.

“The Beginning.” Gen. 1. 19 Mar. 2006 Website.

"BPS Statement Opposing the Teaching of Alternatives To Evolution In K-12 Science Classrooms." Biophysical Society. 5 Nov. 2005. Biophysical Society Executive Board. 11 Dec. 2005 Website.

Calvert, John. Closing Statement by John H. Calvert. Kansas Evolution Hearings, 12 May 2005, Kansas Board of Education. 11 Dec. 2005 Website.

Costello, Paul. "Citizen MD." Editorial. Virtual Mentor 7 (2005). 11 Dec. 2005 Website.

Darwin, Charles. Introduction. The Origin of Species. By Charles Darwin. 6th ed. Literature.org, 2005. 17 Dec. 2005 Website.

“Focus: news of interest about creation and evolution.” Creation. Mar. 2005. 18 Dec. 2005 Website.

Ham, Ken. "Creation: 'where's the proof?'" Creation. Dec. 1999. 11 Dec. 2005 Website.

"IDnet Applauds New Kansas Science Standards." Intelligent Design Network. 8 Nov. 2005. 11 Dec. 2005 Website.

Jacoby, Jeff. "The timeless truth of creation." The Boston Globe 2 Oct. 2005. 11 Dec. 2005 Website.

Lyon, Kaley. "USD 383 Becomes First District to Reject New Science Standards." Kansas State Collegian 16 Feb. 2006. 18 Mar. 2006 Website.

"The Myth of the Separation of Church and State." No Apathy. Mar. 2000. 19 Mar. 2006 Website.

Orr, H. Allen. "Devolution: Why intelligent design isn't." The New Yorker 30 May 2005. 11 Dec. 2005 Website.

"Private School Enrollment Continues to Climb." Council for American Private Education. Nov. 2003. Council for American Private Education. 20 Mar. 2006 Website.

Sheppard, Pam. "Kansas school board in international spotlight … again." Answers in Genesis. 10 May 2005. 11 Oct. 2005 Website.

Sweet, Frederick. "Commentary: Religion Instead of Science." Intervention Magazine 1 June 2005. 11 Oct. 2005 Website.

United States of America. National Science Board. National Science Foundation. National Science Board Statement on Action of the Kansas Board of Education on Evolution. 20 Aug. 1999. 6 Dec. 2005 Website.

Wilgoren, Jodi. "Kansas school board moves to challenge evolution -- again." New York Times 6 May 2005. 11 Oct. 2005 Website.
Report a broken link