Intelligent Design in America's Classrooms

*This article first appeared in the April 9, 2006, issue of Todays' Pentecostal Evangel.

Intelligent Design: Classroom battle over Darwinism heats up
by Jocelyn Green

The clash between those who believe in Darwinian evolution and those who believe in a divine Creator is not a new one. Ever since Charles Darwin published The Origin of the Species in 1859, introducing his theory of evolution to the world, those in opposing camps on the issue have been up-in-arms defending their views.

Ultimately, the espousing of Darwinian evolution prevailed. And though the opposing side has remained adamant, Darwinian evolution has remained the unchallenged theory on the beginning of the universe taught in public schools across the country.

The tide, however, is beginning to turn. Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of Americans support teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools, according to a poll released in August 2005 by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. The poll also reveals that three-quarters of Americans believe God created life on Earth.

At the same time, the theory of intelligent design (compatible with but different from creationism) is gaining attention. For the first time in nearly a century, challenges to Darwinian evolution are being heard on a national level and in some cases already, changing what American children are taught in public schools.

Defining the terms
While some use the terms “intelligent design” and “creationism” interchangeably, there are key differences. The Seattle-based Discovery Institute, a secular think tank, explains it like this: The scientific theory of intelligent design holds that there are clear indicators of design in nature and that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause.

Intelligent design theory (or ID) does not claim that science can determine the identity of the intelligent cause. Nor does it claim that the intelligent cause must be a “divine being” or an “all-powerful force.” All it proposes is that science can identify whether certain features of the natural world are the products of intelligence.

Of course, if one does believe in a source of intelligent design, it begs the question of who the designer is. That question carries weighty philosophical significance, fanning the flames of the debate.

“Intelligent design challenges the idea that random mutation and natural selection account for the complexity of life,” says Rob Crowther, director of communications at the Discovery Institute. “That’s the Darwinian mechanism which we’re skeptical of, so we like to be very specific in referring to ‘Darwinian evolution’ as the subject of our debate.”

Dr. Michael Tenneson, biology professor at Evangel University in Springfield, Mo., says the prominence of organizations such as the Discovery Institute is adding fuel to the fire caused by the friction between Darwinian evolution and intelligent design. “The number of experts who were arguing for ID has increased and the materialistic science establishment ignored it for a long time,” says Tenneson. “It’s just that the number of people promoting the idea has increased to the point where pop culture is now aware of it, and scientists feel they have to respond now.”

Trials and errors
Even with the majority of Americans polled saying they support more than just evolution being taught in the classroom, the debate is fierce for what children are exposed to in school, largely due to powerful groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

A six-week trial ending Dec. 20, 2005, put Dover, Pa., on the map for a one-minute statement the school board required to be read at the beginning of the ninth grade evolution unit. The ACLU filed suit over the statement, claiming an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The statement acknowledged that Darwin’s theory of evolution is “not a fact” and that other theories exist, including intelligent design.

Richard Thompson and his team of lawyers from the Thomas More Law Center defended the school board’s decision free of charge. “It was our position that Darwin’s theory of evolution should be treated as a scientific theory, not a fact,” says Thompson. “We felt that the school board was within its constitutional right to point out that there are alternative theories. Merely mentioning ‘intelligent design’ certainly does not establish religion.”

The school board was defeated, and eight board members who favored the policy were voted out of office Nov. 8, 2005 and replaced by new board members opposing intelligent design. Josh Rowand, a senior at the high school, says he was disappointed with the ruling but hopeful that other schools will have better success.

“I’m encouraged because other people are pursuing it calmly and rationally,” Rowand says. “There’s a big thing that can result from this. All we want is for schools to acknowledge that there’s more than just Darwin to explain the origins of life, and intelligent design is one option.”
To date, five states have adopted science standards that require learning about evolution’s controversies, thereby chipping away at Darwin’s pedestal.

Philosophy of science
Far from mandating the teaching of intelligent design in classrooms (although they believe it is certainly permissible), the Discovery Institute supports exposing the flaws in Darwin’s theory of evolution by teaching more of it, not less. The expanded curriculum would include the controversies which scientists are debating about the theory.

“For a good science education, we want students to be critical thinkers, to learn to analyze problems and to be able to debate and argue both sides of an issue,” says Crowther.
And yet even that approach is met with staunch opposition by those who’d rather suppress all discussion of Darwinian evolution’s challenges.

“We have seen repeated, consistent efforts by very dogmatic Darwinists who want only Darwinism in the classroom, and that it would not be questioned,” Crowther says. “Certainly there is a philosophical component. Just as the theory of intelligent design begs the question of who the designer is, Darwinism also has religious implications. Their notion of purposelessness is very in line with secular humanist or atheistic viewpoint. So if one really adheres to those philosophies, one is inclined to be that much more devout in defense of Darwinism.”

Thompson says the main reason he defended the Dover school board was the concern that evolution is an ideological theory, a stealth way of bringing atheism or secular humanism into the classroom. “The foremost Darwinists say you can’t disengage the theory of Darwin’s evolution from atheism,” says Thompson. “Many Darwinists indicate that natural selection replaces the notion of God.”

In 2004, Tenneson and his colleague Dr. Steve Badger conducted a survey of 1,032 Assemblies of God college students, administrators and faculty . They found the majority believe in either Young Earth Creationism (46 percent), Old Earth Creationism (20 percent) or Evolutionary Creationism (9 percent), with a small percentage believing in atheistic evolution (0.5 percent). Tenneson says that the unarguable position about origins which all Christians must hold is that God is the creator and that He created. Other than that, he says, “It’s dangerous to make a huge battle among believers to decide which is the correct orthodox origins position; people on the outside will not be drawn to the Gospel through that.”

Predicting the future
Many have likened the Dover trial to the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925. While the historical significance is similar, the major difference is that in 1925, Christian champion William Jennings Bryan successfully prosecuted against a Tennessee schoolteacher who taught evolution in the classroom. Eighty years later, the Dover trial was just the opposite: the suit was filed for teaching (or mentioning) anything other than evolution in the classroom.

“It’s ironic that in 1925 the ACLU was proclaiming the right of teachers to teach whatever they wanted to teach,” says Thompson. “They are now trying to censor what teachers are teaching.” Thompson points out that although Bryan won the Scopes trial, ultimately evolution prevailed in public schools. Likewise, just because the Dover school board was defeated does not mean the chapter is closed on the debate.

“Anyone who thinks a court ruling is going to kill off interest in intelligent design is living in another world,” John West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, told Religion News Service. “Americans don't like to be told there is some idea that they aren't permitted to learn about. It used to be said that banning a book in Boston guaranteed it would be a best-seller. Banning intelligent design in Dover will likely only fan interest in the theory.”

Crowther predicts a growing demand by the public for science standards that will allow students to learn about the controversy over Darwinian evolution.

“The discussion will continue, the genie is out of the bottle,” says Thompson. “It becomes on one level a debate in our culture about who we are. During the Dover trial, many witnesses said they don’t mind ID being taught, but not in science class. But in January 2006, ID was taught in a philosophy class and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State sued for that, so the school caved in. It’s up to Christians to stand up and understand what’s going on in the public school system.”