Evolution and Intelligent Design Explained

Intelligent design and evolution have created one of the most controversial topics in the past few years. Many conservative groups have tried to put intelligent design into the science curriculum; those who oppose usually have credentials in the same field. The goal of the conservative groups is to make intelligent design an alternative to evolution; however, doing so is not only unconstitutional but it also cannot even be classified as a scientific theory. Therefore, including intelligent design in science curriculum should be prohibited.

Intelligent design is closely related to William Paley's argument of the watchmaker. The argument says that if a person were to find a watch in the forest, that person would come to the conclusion that the watch was created by humans: the watch is "designed." This watch cannot work unless all of the parts function correctly; logically, it is impossible for this watch to have "evolved" in nature. The simplest cell is more complex than a watch; following this logic, the cell must have been designed. This argument, however, is flawed and will be discussed later on.

The controversy has gained notoriety in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. Eleven parents sued the Dover school board for bringing a religious idea into a science classroom. Soon after, more schools followed Dover by offering intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in the biology curriculum. The results of the Kitzmiller v. Dover case was decided by Federal Judge John E. Jones. In his final report, Jones reported including intelligent design in a public school broke the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. He ruled intelligent design as "a particular religious belief, not a valid scientific theory, and teaching it in public school science classrooms violates the Constitution." The official interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment upheld Jefferson's convictions that there should be "a wall of separation between church and State." The school, being a state-funded institution, cannot purposely favor one religion over another. In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that creationism in science classrooms is unconstitutional; this case was used as the foundation of Jones' final report.

A well-known and controversial group that supports intelligent design is the Discovery Institute, which promotes science as long as it fits the Christian Scripture. Despite their denial of promoting Christian beliefs using intelligent design, numerous proofs have been found showing that their ultimate goal is to put their religious ideas into schools. The best example of this is the Wedge Document, a plan that explains their goals. The leaked document shows that their "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist world view, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." The "stifling dominance of the materialist world view" is evolution, a commonly misunderstood theory, supported by scientists and denied by fundamentalists.

Contrary to what many conservatives groups claim, evolution is a solid theory with plenty of evidence. They often use the argument "evolution is a theory, not a fact." However, according to the National Academy of Sciences, "the contention that evolution should be taught as a 'theory, not as a fact' confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use." A scientific theory is the end of an idea; it incorporates many observations to generate an explanation. The definition of evolution is the gradual change of an organism (usually through adaptation) from generation to generation. This change can be the result of either random mutation or natural selection. Note that mutation is usually negligible but can have both positive and negative effects which directly affects the natural selection process.

Intelligent design supporters often claim that there are no transitional fossils; this belief only shows ignorance as hundreds of these fossils have been found. For example, the Pakicetus from millions of years ago had nostrils at the front of its skull while the Delphinapterus leucas (beluga whale), a descendant of the Pakicetus, has nostrils at the top of the skull. Therefore, there should be an organism similar to the Delphinapterus leucas but have nostrils in the middle of the skull. The Aetiocetus matches this description perfectly and falls right between the two organism's time periods. This is referred to as micro-evolution, the small change in an organism. Macro-evolution, also known as speciation, is when an organism changes so much that it reproduction with the parent species is no longer possible (exceptions do exist). The skull of a chimpanzee, the closet living species to humans, closely matches that of an Australopithecus africanus. From that time period continuing on chronologically, a series of skulls showing slight changes have been found leading up to the Homo sapiens. These two examples show proof that both micro- and macro-evolution exist and is common in all organisms. Once these ideas are fully understood, it becomes easy to see why evolution is not "just a theory."

Intelligent design, on the other hand, offers nothing close to be a valid scientific theory. A theory should either be testable (such as chemistry) or observable (such as astronomy). However, Michael Behe, a biochemist and supporter of intelligent design, confessed, "You can't prove intelligent design by experiment"; logically, it must be done through observation while evolution has occurred in a testable environment (artificial speciation) as well as observation. One of his first arguments for intelligent design is the flagellum of a cell is too complex for it to have been evolved. All of the parts of the flagellum require each other, and if one is removed, the rest cannot function; this mirrors the watch-maker argument. His compromise is a designer. The argument, however, is not valid because it assumes the entire thing was produced at once. In reality, this almost never happens. Instead, one thing changes; if it becomes advantageous, then it is kept as the species continue to reproduce. Each step eventually leads to the flagellum, eye, or any complex part. This is also proven as primitive "eyes" could only distinguish light; obviously, this is much better than being blind so it was kept in the population by natural selection. Over more time, colors could be seen and eventually, the eye is produced.

Intelligent design cannot be observed either. Anyone who claims to have observed intelligent design because life is so complex is committing the logical fallacy of "begging the question". In simple terms, circular reasoning: life is complex, therefore there is a creator and a creator must exist for there to be life. Intelligent design suffers from numerous other logical fallacies. For example, supporters have intelligent design have the burden of proof of showing the existence of a designer. Further proof that intelligent design does match the definition of science is shown when the Kansas school board voted on changing the definition of science "so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena."

If one were to examine the evidence on both sides, it becomes obvious that intelligent design does not belong in a classroom. Intelligent design does not meet any of the required scientific standards to be considered a theory while evolution has the support of credited individuals and evidence. To include intelligent design in a science classroom would a mockery of science that is trying to search for the natural explanations of phenomenons in this world.

Works Cited--

Associated Press

Vatican paper: Intelligent design not science. 19 January 2006

Kansas school board redefines science. 8 November 2005

American Civil Liberties Union

Federal Judge Jones' report on the Kitzmiller v. Dover. 20 December 2005

Court Rules "Intelligent Design" is Not Science. 20 December 2005

Talk Origins

Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court Decision.

Some More Observed Speciation Events.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

First Amendmenet Library

Establishment Clause Supreme Court Cases.

Discovery Institute

Evolution or design debate heats up. 7 March 2005

National Academy of Science

Terms Used in Describing the Nature of Science

Berkley University

Transitional forms