Evolution vs. Intelligent Design: Can Both Coexist in the Classroom, and Should They?

INTRODUCTION One of the most hotly debated issues in twenty-first century American culture concerns how science is taught in Americas classrooms. Many battles are being waged in school districts across the country as proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) theory seek to have a forum in the public school classroom alongside evolutionary theory. In January 2005 a school district in Cobb County, Georgia, was ordered to remove stickers from biology textbooks which cautioned students that evolution was a theory, not a fact, and as such needed to be approached cautiously and examined critically. A political firestorm erupted in August 2005 when President Bush remarked that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools, bringing immediate charges of the President violating the constitutional mandate of church-state separation. A court trial, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, began in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on September 26, 2005 in which the Dover school district is facing the charge of promoting religion by requiring students to hear a statement on Intelligent Design before ninth-grade lessons on biology regarding evolution. Evolutionists claim that advocates of ID, of whom Bible believing Christians compose the vast majority, are scientifically ignorant and willfully nave. However, it seems that Darwinists deliberately are attempting to keep schoolchildren ignorant of the many flaws and inconsistencies in evolutionary theory. Therefore, I have provided below a few thoughts regarding evolution and the ID controversy. First, I comment on and critique an article that appeared in a recent edition of National Geographic regarding the subject of evolution. I will show how the author uses fallacious arguments and presents the common view of evolution from a naturalistic worldview, a worldview based not on scientific principles but on philosophy. Next, I offer a few critiques that I see as significant flaws in evolutionary theory. The flaws I discuss are a small sample of the kinds of issues that Intelligent Design activists seek to have brought into classroom discussion, not to promote a particular religious viewpoint, but merely to point out that evolution does not provide a comprehensive and complete explanation for the origin of life and the inherent complexity found in biology. I will finish by making the argument that ID should be taught alongside evolution in the classroom, because one is just as much a mixture of science and philosophy as the other, and neither warrants that its doctrine be taught to the exclusion of the other. This paper is directed to college students and adults who may have only a cursory understanding of the

Carey-Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

ID controversy. It is my hope that the reader will find the following information thought provoking. I confess up front that I hold to a theistic worldview and thus I allow for the supernatural intervention of God into the ordinary affairs of life. If you are an evolutionist reading this paper, I ask that you read the following with an open mind and then consider whether evolution, as the term commonly is used today, is really scientific, or if it is instead a worldview which philosophers would call an anti-supernatural metaphysic. For fellow Christians, I offer the following as one of many ways to demonstrate that naturalistic Darwinism cannot possibly explain adequately the existence of life, and that life as we know it, with its inherent complexity and design, must be the work of a supernatural creator whose creation account can be read in the pages of the Bible. EVOLUTION AS DEFINED IN THE POPULAR CULTURE The November 2004 issue of National Geographic contains a major article on evolution. The magazines cover contains a picture of a reptile with a question superimposed over the picture asking, in big bold letters, "Was Darwin Wrong?" The article takes up 30 pages of the issue. So let me quote a bit of the article and then comment on it. Evolution by natural selection, the central concept of the life's work of Charles Darwin, is a theory. It's a theory about the origin of adaptation, complexity, and diversity among Earth's living creatures. If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. The notion that the earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact.1 Evolutionary theory, though, is a bit different. It's such a dangerously wonderful and far-reaching view of life that some people find it unacceptable, despite the vast body of supporting evidence. . . . Many fundamentalist Christians and ultra-orthodox Jews take alarm at the thought that human descent from earlier primates contradicts a strict reading of the Book of Genesis. Their discomfort is paralleled by Islamic creationists2 Two big ideas, not just one, are at issue: the evolution of all species, as a historical phenomenon, and natural selection, as the main mechanism causing that phenomenon. The first is a question of what happened. The second is a question of how.3 The gist of the concept is that small, random, heritable differences among individuals result in different chances of survival and reproduction - success for some, death without offspring for others - and that this natural culling leads to significant changes in shape, size, strength,

1 2

David Quammen, Was Darwin Wrong? National Geographic, November 2004, 4-6. Ibid., 6. 3 Ibid., 9.

(2)

Carey-Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

armament, color, bio-chemistry, and behavior among the descendants.4 These opening paragraphs of the National Geographic article contain a number of fundamental problems in the way assertions are made. The problems fall into a category of critical thinking called "logical fallacies," which are errors in logic or reasoning. Let me point out a few of these from the article. First, the author, David Quammen, confuses observable science with theoretical science. He compares the "theory" of evolution with the theory of orbital mechanics regarding how the earth orbits the sun, or the theory of electricity, which can be directly observed, measured, and repeatedthree fundamental requirements of any scientific process. Evolution, in the sense of the word given in the article and used by scientists in general, is not a theory in the same way as the theories we hold about the earth's orbit around the sun or how electricity is produced. It does not even fall into the same category. Thus, any attempt to force a comparison is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty. Quammen states that each theory, including evolution, has been tested by observation and experiment as to be accepted as fact. The questions to ask, though, are how does he define evolution, and which aspects of evolutionary theory have been tested by observation and repeated experiments to confirm the theory? I'll address those questions in a moment. Second, Quammen commits a common fallacy used by those who are unable to refute the merits of their opponent's position, and who instead launch into an attack on their opponent's character. They commit character assassination of their opponent instead of addressing the argument. This fallacy is called an ad hominem argument, or "argument against the man." You can see it in the following statement the author makes, which I quote: Many fundamentalist Christians and ultra-orthodox Jews take alarm at the thought that human descent from earlier primates contradicts a strict reading of the Book of Genesis. Their discomfort is paralleled by Islamic creationists [who] call the theory of evolution 'nothing but a deception imposed on us by the dominators of the world system.'5 Rather than address directly the objections that Christians make against the so-called theory of evolution, Quammen attempts a character assassination of fundamentalist Christians by comparing them to "Islamic creationistswho see evolution as a deception imposed by the dominators of the world system." Essentially, what he has done is to state, "I do not care what kind of objections Christians raise against evolution or how valid those objections may be. The objections are irrelevant because Islamic fundamentalists raise the same

4 5

Ibid. Ibid., 6.

(3)

Carey-Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

objections, and we have seen from 9/11/01 how irrational religious beliefs can become and what radical Islam is capable of doing." William Dembski notes that it is a common tactic of Darwinists to attack their critics by beginning with an ad hominem argument aimed at destroying the critics credibility.6 When evolutionists raise objections like these, they should be pointed out, forcing them to actually evaluate and answer the objections rather than making an irrelevant comparison and dismissing the objections in an ad hominem manner. Another problem in the article has to do with how terms are defined. This is a common tactic when discussing evolution with hard-core evolutionists. The problem or fallacy is called an equivocation, which means that one or more key words is defined with more than one meaning. In other words, the meaning of a word changes mid-stream in the argument. The term "evolution" is such a word, because there are actually two kinds of evolution. Microevolution is what Charles Darwin observed as he journeyed around the world aboard the HMS Beagle. Microevolution is defined as the small, incremental changes that occur within a species which allow the species to adapt and survive in response to changing environmental conditions. This definition of evolution is undisputed even among fundamental Christians; it has been observed in nature and continues to be seen on an ongoing basis. This is what Quammen describes when he comments regarding the existence of "small, random, heritable differences among individuals [that] result in different chances of survival and reproduction" The other definition of evolution is more properly called macroevolution. Macroevolution is the idea that small changes within a species, i.e. microevolution, leads ultimately to large, significant changes over time such that an entirely new species evolves which is more complex than its predecessor.7 This can be seen in the second half of Quammens definition of evolution, where he states, this natural culling leads to significant changes in shape, size, strength, armament, color, bio-chemistry and so on. Note that Quammen moves seamlessly from defining microevolution to macroevolution within the same sentence in a way that the casual reader easily would overlook. Note also that, despite Quammens assertion, macroevolution is not really science at all, because the evolution of a new, more advanced and complex species from a less complex one has never been observed, nor

William A. Dembski, ed., Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing (Wilmington, DE: ISI, 2004), xxxiii. 7 Neil Campbell, Lawrence Mitchell, and Jane Reece; Biology: Concepts and Connections (Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings, 1997), 298.

(4)

Carey-Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

is there any evidence to suggest such a massive change between species has ever occurred.8 Macroevolution is a philosophical point of view, or a faith-based belief system if you want to call it that, which says, "this is what we believe happened, although we cannot prove it." It is a belief system based on a philosophical point of view called naturalism. Naturalism is a worldview that assumes that nature is a permanently closed system of material causes and effects that can never be influenced by anything outside of itself.9 Therefore, everything that happens or appears to have happened must be explained solely by naturalistic means. Naturalism eliminates, up front, the possibility of the existence or intervention of a supernatural being or creator and is thus as much a religious viewpoint as creationism. Because naturalism dismisses the possibility of the existence of a divine creator a priori, naturalists have difficulty with the evidence of design that exists in the natural world. They attempt to explain away the apparent design of the world as "merely appearing to be designed." Their naturalistic belief forbids them to even consider that things appear to be designed because they are designed. They have to explain away the discrepancy between the available evidence and their own belief system. The point of making the distinction is this: When Christians and other adherents of ID theory are accused of ignoring hard scientific evidence because they deny the theory of evolution, they should clarify exactly which definition of evolution is under discussion. They must not allow their opponent to equivocate on the definition of evolution, because it is almost a certainty he will try to do so, just like the author of the National Geographic article does. I know of no believer who wants to be accused of being willfully ignorant of science in the face of overwhelming evidence. And with regard specifically to evolution, I am unaware of anyone who denies the existence of microevolution. One would be foolish to try and deny it, since the evidence is overwhelming. On the other hand, one would be well within reason to object to and deny macroevolution without the fear of being labeled anti-science, because macroevolution is not science at all, but a philosophical, naturalistic explanation of what scientists think happenedwhat Phillip Johnson calls speculative philosophy.10 We must not allow our evolutionist friend confuse the two. DARWINIAN EVOLUTION EXAMINED Now, let me offer a critique of just a few of the many deficiencies of Darwinian theory. In order to

8 9

Dembski, Uncommon Dissent, xxii. Phillip E. Johnson, Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law, & Education (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1995), 38. 10 Phillip E. Johnson, Evolution as Dogma in Dembski: Uncommon Dissent, 37.

(5)

Carey-Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

define my terms, when I use the term "evolution" in the following comments, I mean macroevolution rather than microevolution. One compelling argument against evolution and for a creation model of life is called the Teleological Argument or the "Argument from Design." The argument goes something like this: 1. Anything that exhibits properties of design must have had a designer. 2. All of creation exhibits properties of design. 3. Therefore, all of creation must have a designer. The common analogy used for the argument from design is the watch, offered by William Paley (17431805). The analogy goes something like this: "Suppose you take a stroll through the woods, and upon looking down you see a watch on the trail. You pick it up and examine it. You observe that it has springs, gears, a dial with information on it, pointing devices, and the like. The watch appears to have been intentionally designed, because it could not have self-formed with such intricate detail. You surmise, therefore, that the watch had a designer." Of course, you would be correct. The argument from design has been around a long time, and evolutionists have been grappling with this argument unsuccessfully. In fact, one evolutionist by the name of Richard Dawkins wrote a book called The Blind Watchmaker in an attempt to rebut Paley's watch analogy. In the book he argues that, although the cosmos "appears" to have been designed, the designer was nothing more than the unguided, random nature of chance occurrences over billions of years; i.e., The Blind Watchmaker. One of the passages often quoted from his book is: "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose"11 (emphasis mine). Dawkins states that the evidence of design in the universe cannot be ignored, but then due to his anti-supernatural bias, discounts the fact that design by its very nature implies a "designer." Dawkins, however, seems to be part of a fading minority among scientists who continue to try and use the "Blind Watchmaker" analogy. As astronomers learn more about the nature of our earth, its relation to the other planets in our solar system and our moon, and the nature of our solar system as it is positioned within the Milky Way galaxy, these astronomers are beginning to understand that even the universe has the appearance of

11

Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: Norton, 1987), 1.

(6)

Carey-Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

having been designed to operate within very tight limits which are conducive to sustaining life on planet Earth.12 Robert Jastrow, an astronomer and self-proclaimed agnostic13, somewhat kicked off the "design of the universe" concept several years back with a book called God and The Astronomers. Despite his agnosticism concerning God, he cites many examples of the appearance of design in the makeup of the universe. Drawing a logical conclusion from his detailed observations, he is left to conclude that an intelligence must have had a hand in the origin of the universe. He concludes his book with an interesting quote which summarizes his observations: "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."14 Another concept useful for refuting evolution is the idea that some things found in nature appear to be irreducibly complex. Michael Behe has been the chief proponent of the idea of irreducible complexity since the introduction of his book Darwins Black Box in 1996. Evolution cannot explain away irreducible complexity. Let me try to define it for you. Something is irreducibly complex if it is made of several independent components which function together as a unit. None of the parts has any functional value apart from the rest of the parts. And if one part of the whole is missing, the unit ceases to be a functional unit. An analogy is useful to help understand this concept. As an example of something that is irreducibly complex, Behe uses the simple, old-fashioned mousetrap.15 The mouse trap is made of a handful of components: a flat block of wood to serve as a platform, a spring, a hinged hammer which snaps closed, a holding bar which holds back the hinged hammer, and a bait catch which secures the holding bar until wiggled by a mouse. This mousetrap is irreducibly complex. Every individual component is required in order for it to perform the thing it was designed for: catching mice. If one piece is missing, it does not simply become less able to catch mice, it stops working altogether. If four of the five components of the trap were present, for example, and only the spring was missing, it would not catch 4/5 as many mice as it would if all components were present, it would catch no mice at all. We find examples far
12

Hugh Ross, Fine Tuning for Life on Earth [on-line article]; available at http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/200406_fine_tuning_for_life_on_earth.shtml; accessed 20 October, 2005. 13 Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (New York: Norton, 1978), 11. 14 Ibid., 116. 15 Michael Behe, Darwins Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: Free Press, 1996), 39-45.

(7)

Carey-Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

more complex in nature of this sort of irreducible complexity. One such example in nature is the bacterial flagellum. The flagellum is the little, whip-like tail attached to a bacteria cell that propels it through its environment. I'm sure you've all seen examples in science books or on the Nature Channel of a microscopic view of, say, pond water, with little things whipping around in the water when viewed through the microscope. It turns out that the flagellum of a bacterium is a very complex mechanism, constructed much like many modern day motors. If any of the numerous components of the flagellum is missing, it ceases to work, meaning that the bacteria can no longer propel itself around in its environment, and do whatever it needs to do to survive. Scientists at the Nanotechnology Research Center in Japan have concluded that "nature" made a very complex motor of about 30 nanometers diameter (a nanometer is one billionth of a meter) which self-assembles using 25 different proteins.16 Their observations have concluded that this microscopic motor operates at greater than eighty percent efficiencymore efficient than any man-made motor is capable of. These researchers have also developed computer models in fascinating detail of how the flagellum is constructed. Of course, these scientists, awed with the ability of "nature" to create such an efficient and complex machine fail to recognize that nature had nothing to do with it. Such a complex design could only have come from a very Intelligent Designer. Evolutionists have a very difficult time trying to explain how many attempts "evolution" had to try before it got the design right for the flagellum to work properly. In actuality, all the individual pieces had to be present at the same time, for the very first bacteria. In reality, there was no opportunity for a "try the design, modify it by natural selection, and try it again until you get it right" approach of Darwinian evolution. It had to work right the first time. Another example of irreducible complexity is the simple one-celled bacteria itself. Even the smallest or least complex single cell entity is composed of multiple structures, all of which are required for the cell's continued existence. Remove one of these systems and the cell ceases to function. Without getting into specific detail here (read any first year biology textbook for the details), there are subsystems within any cell that perform the following functions:

16

Keiichi Namba, Revealing the Mystery of the Bacterial FlagellumA self-assembling nanomachine with fine switching capability, [on-line article], available at: http://www.nanonet.go.jp/english/mailmag/2004/011a.html, accessed 20 October, 2005.

(8)

Carey-Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Gather nutrients from the cell's environment Process nutrients and convert them into useable energy (metabolism) Dispose of the waste by-products created by metabolism Repair the cell when damaged Allow the cell to reproduce Propel the cell around within its environment Bruce Alberts, current member and former president of the National Academy of Sciences, calls these

subsystems an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines which contain highly coordinated moving parts.17 Macro-evolutionists would have us believe that each of these subsystems developed through a random process over a long period of time through small modifications, as needed to insure the survival and propagation of the species (the cell). Yet, it is clear that no cell can exist without all these individual subsystems present and actively performing its specific function within the cell. It had to be that way with the very first living cell. Yet another problem for evolutionists is the issue of DNA. There are several things that can be said about DNA, but here are a couple to think about. First, DNA is information, the information needed to direct how a cell develops, what structure the cell will take, what function the cell will serve (liver cell, blood cell, skin, eyeball, nerve, and so on). Information implies an information-giver, an intelligent agency which is responsible for assembling the information. As Dawkins points out, the volume and complexity of information contained in one strand of DNA is equivalent to 1,000 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica.18 Additionally, the information content of DNA is not random, but appears in a very precise order, using sequences of the molecules adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine, abbreviated as A, T, C, and G (this can also be found in any first year biology text). The precise order of these molecules controls the assembly of new protein chains, which is described in the following paragraph. As Geisler notes, if one were to find a piece of paper on which the letters "Drink Coke" appears, one would properly conclude that the letters were placed by an intelligent agent, since the letters are not random but rather convey a very specific message. Thus, as Geisler notes, if a simple message such as "Drink Coke" requires an intelligent being, then why doesn't a precise, specific message 1,000 encyclopedias long require one?19 Second is the issue of exactly how DNA is used to create the protein chains used by every living entity. The instructions in the DNA for creating a protein chain are just that: instructions. They cannot, of themselves,

17

Bruce Alberts, The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists, Cell, February 8, 1998, 291; quoted in William Dembski, Intelligent Design (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1999), 146-147. 18 Dawkins, 17-18, 116. 19 Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Dont Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Wheaton: Crossway, 2004), 116.

(9)

Carey-Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

create a protein. Instead, another substance, messenger RNA, must "read" the instruction set on the DNA. The sequence (simplified) works like this: The RNA "reads" the instruction from the DNA, and based on combination of the instruction, the RNA retrieves an amino acid to form the first link of the polypeptide. This process is repeated-DNA, RNA, amino acid, until the protein strand is complete.20 The point is this: both DNA and RNA are necessary to create and form a single strand of the simplest protein, which is foundational to living organisms. So here we have the classic "chicken and the egg" dilemma for the evolutionist. Which came first in the evolutionary process: DNA or RNA? Answer: neither did; they both had to exist simultaneously in order for any living organism to create the proteins essential to life, proteins which composed that first living cell, but also were necessary for that first cell to carry out the essential functions that insure its survivability. It is quite noteworthy that long-time atheist and proponent of evolution, Antony Flew, recently admitted that the evidence for Intelligent Design, including the complexity of DNA, convinced him to admit that evolution is a bankrupt worldview and that the evidence overwhelmingly points to an Intelligent Designer.21 CAN ID BE TAUGHT AS SCIENCE? Scientists raise the objection that ID is not science but rather philosophy and therefore should not be taught in a science classroom. But is this the case? What constitutes science? What are the principles used in the scientific discovery process, and does ID follow these principles? I alluded to this point earlier, but let us take a closer look at the principles behind ID. Science is a very broad term. Within the field of science are many specialized disciplines. Two disciplines relevant to this discussion are the empirical scientist and the forensic scientist. Empirical scientists study present phenomena and arrive at an understanding of how things work through direct observation and repeatable testing to arrive at a conclusion. Empirical scientists focus on present regularities, phenomena which occur regularly and thus can be directly observed. Forensic scientists, on the other hand, study unrepeatable singularities, events that are one-time occurrences. Since singularities are, by definition, impossible to recreate, forensic scientists, in forming a conclusion regarding the cause behind a singular event, cannot use the same methods that empirical scientists
20 21

Campbell, Mitchell, and Reese, 179-181. Gary Habermas, My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: An Exclusive Interview with Antony Flew, Philosophia Christi 6 (2004), 197.

(10)

Carey-Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

use. Instead, forensic scientists use something called the principle of uniformity to form their conclusions. The principle of uniformity holds that causes in the past can be applied with the same criteria as causes we observe today. As an example of this principle, Geisler and Turek contrast two geological formations: the Grand Canyon and Mount Rushmore. We know through observation today that running water and the process of erosion can change a geologic plain into a canyon over time. Though nobody was around to directly observe the creation of the Grand Canyon in this way, we can infer that it was created by the process of erosion in the past because we observe today what erosion is capable of doing. In a similar vein, it is unlikely that the natural process of erosion can account for the faces carved into the side of Mount Rushmore. Since we observe today that only an intelligent cause can create a highly detailed sculpture with specificity such that we can recognize a design, so must we conclude that the faces of Mount Rushmore were caused by an intelligent agent, though it is likely that none of us was there to observe it directly.22 A forensic scientist, therefore, can make observations regarding the evidence of design found in nature, design that even the most vocal advocate of evolution is forced to admit exists, and draw a scientific conclusion about the source of that design by using the principle of uniformity. This is every bit as scientific as the forensic criminal investigator who makes observations about a past singularity, such as a murder, and arrives at a conclusion as to how, when, and why the murder occurred, even though he did not observe the murder directly. Evolutionists attempt to apply the principle of uniformity to evolutionary theory by suggesting that since we can directly observe small changes in a species today which allow it to adapt to its environment, we can then infer that successive small changes in the past led to significant changes over time which resulted in new species. This is an improper application of the principle, because the evolutionary development of a new species today through successive, incremental changes has not been observed directly. Hence, the principle of uniformity does not apply to macroevolution. Therefore, macroevolution is not based on scientific principles. James Barham makes this point by noting, the real problem with the evolution debate is not empirical Darwinism [microevolution]. Rather, it is a sort of theory creep in which a bold but circumscribed scientific claim becomes conflated with a much more sweeping philosophical claim. The philosophical claim is then

22

Geisler and Turek, 117-118.

(11)

Carey-Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

presented as though it were a confirmed scientific fact.23 The end result is that scientists engaging in such sleight-of-hand tactics perpetrate a fraud on the public by draping their profoundly speculative philosophy with the mantle of scientific authority.24 In light of the foregoing, the issue to be decided is whether ID should be taught alongside evolution as an alternative scientific theory of origins, or whether teaching ID would constitute the establishment of religion as opponents of ID maintain. Francis Beckwith makes a compelling case that ID must be taught in schools. Beckwith notes that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1929 case of Epperson v. Arkansas that government must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practiceand it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.25 It is this very call to neutrality, as Beckwith notes, that may turn out to be the strongest argument for allowing or even requiring ID to be taught in public schools.26 School administrators cannot at the same time allow the teaching of evolution and forbid any discussion of Intelligent Design, because to do so is to engage in viewpoint discrimination. As Beckwith notes, ID is a point of view based on philosophical and empirical arguments which provide[s] answers to the same questions for which the evolutionary paradigm is said to provide answers.27 Thus, school districts are in danger of running afoul of Supreme Court case law by requiring the teaching of evolution while forbidding the teaching of ID, because ID and naturalistic evolution are not two different subjects (the first religion, the second science) but two different answers about the same subject.28 Furthermore, opponents of ID, who insist that to teach ID would violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment, fail to realize that the courts have defined secularism as a religion. For instance, Beckwith notes that in one court case the court commented that The State may not establish a religion of secularism thus preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.29 Consequently, if school

23 24

James Barham, Why I Am Not a Darwinist in Dembski, Uncommon Dissent, 178. Ibid. 25 Francis J. Beckwith, Law, Darwinism, and Public Education: The Establishment Clause and the Challenge of Intelligent Design (Lanham, MY: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003), 12-13. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid., 149. 28 Ibid. (emphasis in the original) 29 Ibid., (endnote 35).

(12)

Carey-Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

districts elect to continue teaching evolution exclusively, they are, according to the Courts definition, engaging in the establishment of a religion. Beckwith summarizes this argument by noting that if a point of view is religious because its plausibility lends support to a religion or a religious point of view, then we would have to conclude that naturalistic evolution is as much a religion as ID, for it lends support to some non-theistic and anti-religious perspectives recognized as religions by the Court.30 To summarize, I have shown that some of the most common arguments used in the popular culture against those who hold to a theistic worldview and allow for an intelligent cause are either fallacious or based on false suppositions. Next, I discussed some of the common arguments for evidence being advocated today by ID proponents. I believe I succeeded in showing that the methods employed by proponents of ID are every bit as scientific as those employed in other areas of science. I concluded by noting that since ID and evolution are both based on a mixture of scientific principles and philosophical assumptions, neither can be taught to the exclusion of the other without engaging in viewpoint discrimination, something the courts have continually ruled against. It is my hope that those on both sides of this issue will recognize that the opposition has something of value to bring to bear on the discussion, that all points of view need to be heard, and that only when all the relevant data is presented can our children make a decision from a fully informed position regarding their understanding of the origins of life.

30

Ibid., 149.

(13)