The Unintelligent Design For Public School Biology
Class (by Scott Chastain)
General
Purpose:
To argue
Specific
Purpose:
To argue that Intelligent Design Theory (IDT) should not be a part of
the
public school biology curriculum.
Thesis Statement:
Intelligent Design Theory should not be taught in public school biology
classes because it is nonscientific, creates confusion about both science and
religion, and is an attempt to sneak Christian Theology into the public schools.
Introduction
I.
Intelligent Design Theory, or IDT, is
the belief that evolution is inherently false, because there seems to be an
overwhelming amount of order and complexity in the natural world, which can only
be attributed to an intelligent designer.
II.
I intend to argue that Intelligent Design Theory should not be taught, as
is being proposed, in public school science classes, because IDT is not
scientific, generates confusion, and is in reality nothing more than a veiled
attempt to smuggle religion out of church and into the public school curriculum.
Body
I.
To be considered scientific, a theory should be testable, measurable, and
falsifiable.
A.
Intelligent Design is not a scientifically recognized theory.
1.
Skip Evans of the National Center for Science Education states in an
article published on May 23rd, 2002 that “Science is done by
scientists who do research, present their ideas at meetings of their peers, and
then publish in scientific journals.”
2.
Robert Pennock wrote in the journal “Books and Culture, Sep/Oct 1999”
that “IDCS (intelligent design-creationists) say material processes can’t
produce new species, but they fail to tell us how they think immaterial
intelligences do the trick or how their theological science will investigate
such claims.”
3.
In the legal handbook “Intelligent Design in Public School Criteria”
published by the Discovery Institute, a leading ‘thank-tank’ for IDT, they
deal with the problem of falsification, the ability of a theory to be proven
false, by stating “if certain criteria are applied more liberally, then both
theories may qualify as scientific.”
a.
This indicates they are approaching the problem of IDT being
non-scientific by claiming that the requirements of science are too strict.
b.
They propose we change the definition of science so that their theory may
be included, which evolutionary theorists have not required for their theory to
be considered scientific.
B.
The current theory of evolution meets all the requirements to be
considered scientific.
1.
In an interview with Dr. Linda DeVeaux, of Idaho State University, she
provided a strong example of empirical evidence for evolution, by stating “At
the molecular level, we can see relationships between the simplest organisms and
very complex organisms. Yeast
histone proteins are interchangeable, functionally, with human histone proteins.
…The proteins in humans did not arise
spontaneously.”
2.
Joseph McInerney, the director for the Biological Sciences Curriculum
Study responded to a student’s allegations that evolution is not scientific
with this evidence: “…the evidence for the relatedness of all species by
descent with modification is overwhelming …The sequence of DNA bases in humans
and chimpanzees -- our closest living relative -- is about 99 percent
identical.”
Transition:
It is clear that Intelligent Design Theory does not, to date, measure up
against evolution as a credible scientific theory.
II.
Intelligent Design Theory generates confusion.
A.
If a nonscientific theory, such as IDT, is taught as a science, the
students will have difficulty determining the critical distinction between
science and pseudo-science.
1.
Dr. Lawrence Lerner, an expert on state science standards, commented in a
study he conducted in September of 2000, that “to tell K-12 students that
there is a credible scientific explanation of the present state and history of
the world other than evolution is to delude them and to distort their
understanding of what science is.”
2.
Scott Charlton, a science teacher at Ohio’s Lebanon High School, a
state which is currently facing the proposed inclusion of IDT, told ABC News,
“I have great concern that we will be a worse joke than Kansas.”
He was referring to the 1999 decision in Kansas to remove evolution from
their science curriculum.
B.
IDT proposes to educate people about an intelligence which is markedly
different
than the one believed in by most Judeo-Christian and Islamic religions.
1.
The 214th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA)
passed a resolution on June 20th, 2002, which stated that it,
“Reaffirms that there is no contradiction between an evolutionary theory of
human origins and the doctrine of God as Creator.”
2.
In philosopher David Hume’s essay “Dialogues Concerning Natural
Religion” he addressed the concept of Intelligent Design as posing several
important challenges to the traditional concept of God.
a.
IDT doesn’t tell us anything about the nature of the designer.
b.
IDT could infer the existence of multiple, and possibly immoral, beings
behind the scenes.
3.
Kenn Hamm, leader of the organization known as “Answers In Genesis”
told the
Baptist Standard online
magazine that Intelligent Design theorists are “not talking about the
God of the Bible.”
4.
By attempting to find a way to test and measure God empirically, IDT
would remove the necessity of faith, which drives revealed religions like
Christianity.
Transition:
It is obvious, therefore that including Intelligent Design Theory in the
public
school curriculum would deceive students about the nature of both science
and
religion.
III.
Intelligent Design Theory is nothing more than an attempt to sneak
religion into the classroom.
A.
The majority of leading proponents and organizations behind IDT have
strong ties
to religious organizations.
1.
Dr. William Dembski, a leading proponent pushing to have IDT taught in
classrooms, stated that intelligent design “is just the Logos of John’s
Gospel
restated in the idiom of information theory.”
2.
The Discovery Institute receives their funding in part by religious
organizations, according to ABC News.
3.
The Wethersfield Institute published a rule book for understanding IDT
called “Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe.” The Institute’s mission statement is thus:
“The purpose of the Wethersfield Institute is to promote a clear
understanding of Catholic teaching.”
B.
The politics behind Intelligent Design Theory are motivated by the
religious assertion that the theory of evolution contradicts a literal
interpretation of the bible.
1.
The Discovery Institute aired an infomercial in Ohio called “Icons of
Evolution” on May 11th and 12th, 2002.
Skip Evens described the infomercial as part of a “well-financed,
disingenuous political campaign that threatens to undermine the quality of
science education nationwide.”
2.
Robert Pollock notes that Phillip Johnson, who started the IDT movement,
“… is content to hammer away at science, driving his wedge between it
and religion,
while concealing the details of what his movement would put in its
place.”
3.
The National Center for Science Education described the Discovery
Institute’s “Bibliography of Supplementary Resources for Ohio Science
Instruction” as “a systematic misrepresentation of the scientific literature
that it cites.”
4.
Intelligent Design Theory claims to account for all natural processes in
the universe, however the IDT proponents are specific about its being taught in
biology class, rather than across a broader scope of the natural sciences. Given
that biology is where evolution is taught, and that many religious groups still
oppose the theory of evolution, the motive seems clear.
Transition:
It is evidentiary that the long-term goal of IDT is not to promote a
better understanding of the world
through the scientific method, but instead to “wedge” science out, and
“wedge” a new hybrid of Christianity into the classroom.
IV.
The claim that complexity in nature can only be accounted for by
Intelligent Design Theory is invalid.
A.
Random assignment, if given enough time and enough variables, is
sufficient for small pockets of order to be introduced without need for
intelligent design.
1.
Phillip Johnson concedes that languages, which are very complex and
ordered, evolve.
2.
Pollock states, “No one designed English, or any other natural
language. Languages do not need special intentional design to evolve from one
into others, and neither do species.”
B.
IDT is not a science, no matter how much complexity it demonstrates, and
should be addressed in a philosophy class, not a science class.
1.
IDT proponent Jonathan Wells told Baptist Standard, “I do think God is
real and created the Universe, but I don’t know how.”
2.
According to Dr. Barbara Forrest, Johnson stated, in 1996, that “This
isn’t really, and never has been, about science.
It’s about religion and philosophy.”
3.
Until the publication of Johnson’s 1991 book “Darwin on Trial,” the
Intelligent Design argument was enclosed in the boundaries of philosophy.
IDT should be content to stay a philosophical matter until scientific
research is conducted to support its own claims.
Transition:
It is quite clear that Intelligent Design Theory is a philosophical
matter, and not a
science, and therefore has no place in biology class.
Conclusion
I.
I have demonstrated that Intelligent Design Theory is not Science.
II.
I have illustrated how introducing IDT into the classroom will generate
confusion about both science and religion.
III.
And I have shown that Intelligent Design Theory is really a clever
attempt to bring religion into the
classroom.
IV.
As we cannot allow religion to be substituted for hard science, it is
clear we must not allow Intelligent Design Theory to be taught as science in our
public school biology classes.
Enthymemes
Major Premise: Any
theory which does not meet the criteria of science is not considered scientific.
Minor
Premise:
Intelligent Design Theory does not meet the criteria of science.
Conclusion:
Intelligent Design Theory is not considered scientific.
Major Premise: Anything
which generates confusion, rather than education, in a classroom ought to be
excluded from the curriculum for that class..
Minor Premise: Intelligent
Design Theory could generate confusion, rather than education, in a biology
classroom.
Conclusion:
Intelligent Design Theory ought to be excluded from the biology
curriculum.
Major Premise: Religion
should not be allowed to be taught in public schools as it violates the First
Article of the Amendments to the Constitution.
Minor
Premise:
Intelligent Design Theory is religious in nature.
Conclusion:
Intelligent Design Theory should not be allowed to be taught in public
schools.
________________________________________________
Milner,
R., Maestro, V., Behe, M., Miller, K., Dembski, W., Pennock, R., Wells, J.,
Scott, E., &
Forrest, B. (2002, April). Evolution:
Intelligent Design? A
Special Report from Natural History
Magazine. Retrieved October 25, 2002
from the World Wide Web:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html.
Pennock,
R. (1999 Sep/Oct). The Science Pages. Books
& Culture. Retrieved
October 25,
2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/9b5/9b5031.html.
Rogers, P.
(2002, May 13). Intelligent
Design Question Tests Ohio School Board. Retrieved
October 18, 2002 from the World Wide Web:
http://baptiststandard.com/2002/5_13/print/design.html.
Woods, C.S.,
& Scharmann, L.C. (2001, December). High
School Students’ Perceptions of
Evolutionary Theory. Electronic
Journal of Science Education, 6,2. Retrieved
October 18,
2002 from the World Wide Web: http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/woodheap.html.
(2002,
July 1). Presbyterian Church (USA) Adopts Resolution on Evaluation on Evolution
and
Education. National Center for Science Education Resource.
Retrieved October 19, 2002
from the World Wide Web:
http://www.ncseweb.org/pressroom.asp.
NCSE
Staff, & Lerner, L. (2002, March 11). Ohio‘s Draft Standards Earn an A
from National
Science Standards Expert. National
Center for Science Education Resource. Retrieved
October 19, 2002 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.ncseweb.org/pressroom.asp.
NCSE
Staff. (2002, April 5). Intelligent Design Bibliography Misleading.
National Center for
Science Education Resource. Retrieved
October 19, 2002 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.ncseweb.org/pressroom.asp.
Evans, S.
(2002, May 23). Discovery Institute Pioneers the Mis-infomercial.
National Center for
Science Education Resource. Retrieved
October 25, 2002 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.ncseweb.org/pressroom.asp.
DeVeaux,
L. (2002, October 22).
Personal Interview.
DeWolf,
D., Meyer, S., & DeForrest, M. (1999).
Intelligent Design in Public School Curricula:
A
Legal Guidebook. Richardson,
Texas: The Foundation for Thought
and Ethics.
Onion, A.,
(2002, April 1). Design vs.
Darwin. Retrieved October 18,
2002 from the World Wide
Web: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/evolution020401.html.
McInerney,
J. (2002, Oct 16). The Teaching of Evolution:
BSCS Responds to a Student’s
Questions. Retrieved October 18, 2002 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.biosci.uga.edu/almanac/biomajor/evolution.html.
Behe, M.,
Dembski, W., & Meyer, S. (2000).
Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe.
San
Francisco: Ignatius Press.
Hume, D.
(1779). Dialogues Concerning
Natural Religion. Reason &
Responsibility. Belmont,
California: Wadsworth Group.
