The Real Truth, OH
09-11-06
INTELLIGENT DESIGN A Telling Debate
Controversy is intensifying as to whether the theory of Intelligent Design should
be addressed by science teachers in public schools. Why is this issue so
divisive?
September 26, 2005, a civil trial began in a federal court in Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, centering on the theory of Intelligent Design (ID). This theory
proposes that the universe is too intricate and complex to have developed
through evolution and natural selection.
The lawsuit Kitzmiller et al v. Dover Area School District has been brought
against the Dover, Pennsylvania, school board by eleven parents in that town.
The American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of
Church and State have come to the aid of this group of parents, while the school
board is being represented by attorneys from the Thomas More Law Center, who
state that they are doing so in the interest of preserving Christian religious
freedom.
The parents object to the Dover school board requiring 9th grade biology
teachers to read the following statement before beginning a unit on evolution:
“The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s
theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution
is a part.
“Because Darwin’s theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence
is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is
no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad
range of observations.
“Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s
view. The reference book, ‘Of Pandas and People,’ is available for students who
might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design
actually involves.
“With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The
school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their
families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing
students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments” (Associated
Press).
Note that Dover teachers are not required to teach ID alongside evolution—they
are merely required to read this statement before setting forth the standard
evolutionary views. Yet, three of the parents in the suit have testified that this
statement alone is harmful to their children. Why has this seemingly objective,
measured disclaimer caused such a firestorm?
Two Camps
The court battle has brought to the stand expert witnesses on both sides of the
issue. One of these is Dr. Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh
University and a prominent advocate of Intelligent Design. His 1996 book
Darwin’s Black Box essentially began the ID movement. Although Dr. Behe is
Catholic, he maintains that his theory is not based on religious convictions, but
rather on physical evidence seen in nature. He believes that the “irreducible
complexity” of natural processes and mechanisms demonstrates that the
universe and life could not merely have happened through random, unguided
forces, but rather was designed.
Opponents contend that ID is simply a new name for creationism—the
acceptance of the Bible’s creation account in the book of Genesis. They believe
that discussing Intelligent Design in a public school violates the principle of
separation of church and state. (As an aside, the phrase “separation of church
and state” can be traced back to an 1801 letter sent by President Thomas
Jefferson to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut. It is not found in the
U.S. Constitution or any of its amendments, as some mistakenly assume.)
Witnesses testifying on behalf of the plaintiffs assert that ID cannot be classified
as scientific, as it cannot be tested or disproved. (Of course, evolution fails to
meet the same criteria.) Some have compared ID to medieval sciences such as
alchemy, and the president of Cornell University has called the effort to bring this
theory into the classroom “very dangerous” (The New York Times).
Elsewhere, the National Academy of Science and the National Science
Teachers’ Association are not allowing their copyrighted materials to be used by
the Kansas Board of Education in Kansas’ science curriculum, due to the
curriculum’s critical stance toward evolution.
At Iowa State University, 120 faculty members signed a petition declaring that
Intelligent Design is not science. This was in response to one of their colleagues,
a faculty astronomy teacher, who wrote a book that contends that Earth had to
have been designed. Similar battles are in progress at the University of California
at Berkeley and Ohio State University.
The majority of academia seem to oppose even entertaining the possibility of the
universe having originated from anything other than blind chance and
happenstance.
Predictably, some prominent media outlets are already framing this debate with a
pro-evolution slant. Articles drawing comparisons between the Pennsylvania
lawsuit and the “Scopes Monkey Trial” of 1925, a case in which teacher John
Scopes was charged with violating a Tennessee state law that forbade the
teaching of evolution. Some consider the media coverage of this high-profile trial,
which in general ridiculed the creationist side, to have been a tipping point,
influencing public opinion in favor of evolution.
The Crux of the Controversy
Dr. Behe believes that he has faced considerable bias against his theory. In
court, he stated, “My ideas on Intelligent Design have been subjected to a
thousand times more scrutiny than anything I’ve written before” (The New York
Times).
Again, we must ask, why is there so much opposition even to the mention of an
alternate theory of origins?
Evolution has largely been accepted as fact by those who are considered highly
educated. In the New Testament, the apostle Paul describes the state of those
who are willingly ignorant of the Creator: “Because that which may be known of
God is manifest in them; for God has showed it unto them. For the invisible
things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood
by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they
are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as
God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their
foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became
fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to
corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things…Who
changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature
more than the Creator” (Rom. 1:19-23, 25).
Why must the status quo of evolution be maintained? This can be answered by
merely connecting the dots. If the universe was designed, this implies that there
is a designer. This designer would have to be superior to human beings in
intellect and power. This sounds suspiciously like a “Supreme Being”—God. If
God exists, then He is sovereign over His creation. If this Creator happens to be
the God who inspired the Holy Bible, then this God sets forth laws and requires
that human beings live by them.
However, living within God’s laws is contrary to human nature: “Because the
carnal [fleshly, natural] mind is enmity [hostile] against God: for it is not subject to
the law of God, neither indeed can be” (Rom. 8:7). The human mind vehemently
opposes the notion of subjection—being ruled!
Continuing the passage cited earlier, Paul goes on to describe the character and
mindset of individuals who choose to ignore the reality of God’s existence: “And
even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to
a reprobate [unfit, worthless, rejected, debased, degraded, useless] mind, to do
those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness,
fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder,
debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful,
proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without
understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable,
unmerciful: who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such
things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that
do them” (Rom. 1:28-32).
This is a very strong description—and warning!
Acknowledging a Designer eventually leads to uncomfortable questions
regarding law and sin, right and wrong. It is far easier to swallow evolutionary
propaganda because blind, purposeless natural forces do not require human
beings to change their ways or to submit to any standards of behavior.
Also, those on both sides of this debate are purportedly seeking the truth on the
question of origins. However, speaking of the nature within all human beings, we
read, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can
know it?” (Jer. 17:9). The theory of evolution places human beings at the top of
the food chain, accountable to no higher authority—veritable “gods” (Gen. 3:5).
This sounds like a comfortable position, if it were accurate. But this scenario is a
case of mass delusion—self deception on a grand scale.
On the other hand, blurring a very real and personal Creator God into a
nebulous, anonymous “intelligence” does not honor that God!
However, we can be thankful that the question of origins will soon be settled
conclusively! After Jesus Christ returns to establish His government on the earth
(Isa. 9:6), true education will prevail: “…yet shall not your teachers be removed
into a corner any more, but your eyes shall see your teachers: And your ears
shall hear a word behind you, saying, This is the way, walk you in it, when you
turn to the right hand, and when you turn to the left” (Isa. 30:20-21).