Wesley D. Hickey is an assistant professor of educational leadership at The University of Texas at Tyler and co-editor of the School Leadership Review Journal.
Board members often are asked to make difficult decisions regarding curriculum issues, and nowhere might those decisions be more difficult than when it comes to science curriculum and standards.
On one hand are evolutionists who believe organisms evolved biologically from an original, primitive state to their current, specialized state. On the other hand are the creationists who believe that everything exists today because a higher being made it happen.
And then there are those who espouse “intelligent design”: they acknowledge evolution but assert that it came about because of divine intervention.
So where will your school board align when discussing science standards and curriculum? Do you have the knowledge you need to participate in a fruitful discussion?
The merits of intelligent design are up for discussion in boardrooms throughout the nation. Science standards are important for the academic success of public school students, and as such, an understanding of intelligent design increases a board member’s knowledge base.
The merits of the intelligent design hypothesis, and more importantly, the perceived problems with natural science, have become regular discussion in many states including Pennsylvania, Kansas, Florida and Georgia. Even California, a state perceived to be socially liberal, has had its share of issues related to intelligent design.
Support from the Discovery Institute, a public policy think tank based in Seattle, has kept this hypothesis in the media. Despite the continued assertion of the merits of intelligent design by its advocates, many individuals lack a basic understanding of the underlying concepts that make it both attractive to many in the religious community and unacceptable to science.
Board members could be moving into problem areas when discussions about curriculum lose sight of public policy and move into the realm of private beliefs about religion … especially when they don’t have the facts from all sides. In addition, boards that try to promote their beliefs through policy … however well-intentioned … may wind up in a courtroom.
Most board members are familiar with the theories of evolution and creationism. But just what is intelligent design?
The good
Intelligent design is the belief that an intelligent designer created all living things and that the evidence of this handiwork can be identified through science. The most famous historical representation of this idea is from William Paley in Natural Theology, written in the early 1800s. Paley said that organisms in nature were obviously designed by a supreme being, just as a watch found in the field was obviously created by a higher being for the purpose of telling time. Even Richard Dawkins, one of the most ardent evolutionists in modern science, has stated that organisms look designed.
This suggests that we intuitively view nature as having a purpose and design. Many individuals see the complexity of life as unfathomable without a designer. View this from the lens of religion, which already has faith in the purpose of God, and there is likely to be a large percentage of society that supports this view of life.
Surveys suggest this is the case, at least in American society. A Harris Poll found that 78 percent of respondents believe in some form of intelligent design (64 percent believed in a creationist philosophy). In addition, 55 percent felt that evolution, creationism and intelligent design should be taught in public school classrooms. This survey converges with a National Geographic article that lists the United States as one of the most likely Western countries to deny the science of evolution.
Intelligent design has some support in the science community. The current version of intelligent design, most legitimately expressed by Lehigh University biologist Michael Behe, does not deny the basic tenets of evolution, only that there are certain structures in living things that are too complicated for a Darwinian or any other naturalistic explanation.
Behe believes these structures are better explained as the handiwork of a supernatural designer. This version of intelligent design supports the evolutionary evidence for common ancestry of living things, but it says the structure of the eye, function of the immune system and working of bacterial flagellum, among other examples, are too complicated to have come about through evolutionary mechanisms.
So what is “the good” in intelligent design?
The bad
Proponents of intelligent design try to separate their hypothesis from creationism, which was found to be an unconstitutional promotion of religion in the 1984 Supreme Court ruling of Edwards v. Aguillard. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from enacting any law with respect to “an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” so any connection between creationism and intelligent design would be suggestive of a possible problem.
Is intelligent design religious? Leaders of the movement say it is not, but these same individuals discuss their religious faith in the same document where they assert a separation. Jonathon Wells promotes intelligent design because he promised the head of his church that he would try to destroy evolution; William Dembski has a degree in theology and sees the need to include the supernatural in science in order to gain respectability for miracles; and biologist Behe has been clear that he believes the designer to be the God of Abraham.
If intelligent design is not religious, the connection is difficult to deny.
Furthermore, Of Pandas and People, a textbook recommended by intelligent design proponents, was originally focused on creationism. After the Edwards v. Aguillard case found creationism unconstitutional, the authors changed the words “creation” to “design.” In most places within the text, these were the only changes. Again, this suggests a promotion of religion.
All of this concern with intelligent design in the political community occurs at a time when biologists consider evolution one of the strongest theories in science. Evolution has been supported by uncountable numbers of peer-reviewed publications, whereas intelligent design is poorly researched by scientific standards.
The Discovery Institute lists 44 peer-reviewed publications that support intelligent design. Many of these listings are questionable since they include books and articles that were not truly peer-reviewed (if peers are other scientists), but nevertheless, the total represents a fraction of scholarly articles on evolution.
In addition, these articles tend to be from the same few individuals. The intelligent design proponents may ask good questions, but their hypothesis is not scientifically compelling. Since intelligent design, in some form or another, has been around much longer than evolution, one may find the paucity of evidence surprising for all of the press it has received.
So what is “the bad” in intelligent design?
The ugly
In Dover, Pennsylvania, the school board passed a policy requiring that a brief statement be read to students asserting the fallibility of evolution and the possibility of intelligent design as a competing option. The judge, in the case Kitzmiller v. Dover, ruled in 2005 that the motivation of the school board was to promote religion, and in a second part of the ruling, stated that intelligent design was not legitimately science.
The judge, a conservative church-going George W. Bush appointee, was labeled an activist from the political right. The case was not appealed because eight of the nine board members who passed this policy in Dover were voted out of office. The voter response from the community may have been partially due to a desire for the schools to provide an education based on the consensus of science, but the bigger factor was probably the knowledge that the lawsuits that come from unconstitutional actions cost money that could be used for other academic purposes.
The Kitzmiller v. Dover decision that intelligent design was not science was due to several factors. First, Edwards v. Aguillard helped set a precedent that science searched for natural explanations; thus, intelligent design, with its emphasis on supernatural interference, did not comply with these standards.
Second, intelligent design appears to be a “God of the gaps” theory. Any difficulty in evolution is labeled as intelligent design, even without evidence for support.
Third, intelligent design proponents work to create gaps whenever possible, focusing on old scientific studies and attempting to create doubt in areas of scientific strength. Biologist Kenneth Miller was a science expert in Kitzmiller v. Dover, and his discussion was so compelling that the judge questioned his decision to keep cameras out of the courtroom. The strength of evolutionary science was so strong that a public viewing of the trial would be revealing and educational.
Although previous court case documents state that science is based on natural explanations, this is not necessarily true. The problem is how to determine possible supernatural interference from a simple lack of understanding. From a scientific point of view, stating “God did it” is a dead end for inquiry. Concluding that a designer created an organism, or some aspect of it, ends the conversation.
Science is about determining how God, or nature, or both, accomplished the task — not claiming miracles and ending the discussion. If an intelligent design scientist can provide a little more understanding of the designer, then studies can examine these characteristics. However, at this point, intelligent design proponents will not define the characteristics of the designer.
Intuition made forms of intelligent design the default belief before Darwin. Darwin’s work provided an explanation that replaced design. The evidence before evolution was intuition and faith, and this has not changed in the past 150 years. During that same time period, evolution has been supported through research held accountable by scientific experts.
So what is “the ugly” in intelligent design?
Conclusion
The current state of politics in America will likely guarantee continued controversies over intelligent design and evolution. Intelligent design is intuitive, and combined with the religious nature of American society, is a more amenable choice than a naturalistic explanation for life.
The problems begin to arise when the discussion moves from private beliefs to public policy. Evolution has become the consensus of science through a highly accountable peer-review research structure that intelligent design has been unable to approach. Problems occur in determining how intelligent design hypotheses differ from a simple lack of scientific knowledge.
Isaac Newton, scientist and Christian, was one of the great minds of all time. In his research, he was unable to account for certain planetary movements with his calculus; thus, he credited God with the occasional interference to provide stable and consistent motion. This intuitive response to the unknown was acceptable to him, but the work of Albert Einstein outlined a natural factor that kept the planets in motion. There was no need for God, in using a paraphrased quote from Einstein, to play dice with the universe. The laws of nature were enough.
Similarly, the current proponents of intelligent design point to any gaps in knowledge and claim these are the work of a designer. In addition, many individuals work to create the illusion of greater gaps. Statements such as “teach the controversy,” “discuss the strengths and weaknesses of evolution” and others are not designed to strengthen a science curriculum, but to tear it down through the creation of gaps where they do not exist. A strong understanding of evolutionary theory is not only important for science, but properly taught it helps to understand why we are as we are.
The most important reason to keep intelligent design out of the classroom is that it is designed to weaken science, but this alone may not be important enough. Many individuals will take the view that any science that hinders their religious view of the world should be changed, and evolution has always been a target.
Therefore, another consideration must be advanced: Attempts to promote intelligent design through policy are likely to end in court, resulting in unnecessary expenses for government agencies and school districts.
Individuals who promote intelligent design, either by attempting to create more gaps in science or promoting a speculative hypothesis, do a disservice to both students and taxpayers. As Judge Jones in Kitzmiller v. Dover stated in his intelligent design decision:
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on intelligent design, who in combination drove the board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
Few behaviors are more unconstitutional and fiscally irresponsible than using a governmental position to promote religion. Leaders in public schools, administrators and school boards alike, must make responsible decisions regarding science. The students and taxpayers deserve no less.
New Texas standards spur national debate
When the Texas State Board of Education voted in March to alter that state’s learning standards in social studies, it was not the first time that the board’s revisions have been under fire.
Just a year ago, TSBOE voted “to alter the state’s science curriculum and drop a standard that critics say undermined proper teaching of evolution in the classroom for the past 20 years,” according to U.S. News & World Report. The new standard “encourages students to scrutinize ‘all sides’ of scientific theories.” U.S News said critics maintained the accompanying curricular changes “unnecessarily encourage debate about key pieces of evolutionary theory, like natural selection and common ancestry.”
It was following that vote that The Illinois School Board Journal received this issue’s cover story from Wesley D. Hickey, University of Texas at Tyler.
Now changes to the social studies standards in 2010 have riled history teachers, students and even ministers in Texas. The new standards minimize the discussion of the separation of church and state while emphasizing the influence of Christianity on the founding fathers.
Ron Briley, assistant headmaster/history at Sandia Preparatory School in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and a native of Texas, hopes “the teachers and students of the Texas public school system will be able to rise above and see through the narrow and partisan history standards.”
Briley, writing for the History News Network, accused the state board of being opposed to critical thinking and of stifling opposing interpretations.
However, Gail Lowe, TSBOE chairman, defended the changes in an interview with the Baptist Press, which carries the slogan “News with a Christian Perspective”:
“Many parents are upset about the abandonment of traditional American values, our loss of freedoms as citizens, and the lack of civic understanding reflected by the general public. In Texas, we believe parents are full partners in the education process, and our Education Code states they are to be directly involved in the development of the curriculum expectations. These new history standards will bring much-needed ideological balance to the textbooks and will emphasize the important principles about our country that the average parent and taxpayer expects of our education system.”
Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, has urged textbook publishers to reject the new changes. The Alliance represents “75 faith traditions as well as non-believers.”
“The Texas SBOE members certainly are entitled to believe whatever they want about our country and its history,” Gaddy told the Associated Baptist Press. “The problem arises when their religious beliefs begin to essentially rewrite history for our children.”
Even college students are questioning the changes. Writing for The Daily Toreador at Texas Tech University, columnist Britton Peele sums the controversy up well: “History, science, theories and fact aren’t always going to support our views as much as we would like. But the only way to truly better ourselves in the long run is to not try to sweep unwanted ideas under the rug.”