---

Intelligent Design and Evolutionary Theory in the Science Classroom

Clark Wolf, Iowa State University Director of Bioethics

 

Intelligent Design and Evolutionary Theory in the Science Classroom

Many science teachers in the United States face a dilemma.  The obligation to teach good science includes an obligation to teach students at least the main elements of evolutionary theory, but many U.S. students regard the theory of evolution with mistrust or even as an attempt to undermine their religious values.  In several communities, parents and school board members have come together to try to remove evolutionary theory from the school curriculum, or to insure that evolutionary theory is presented with qualifiers specifying that evolution is only a theory or that there are gaps in the argument for the theory of evolution.

The problem is a real one.  It is important for science teachers to be respectful of students and their religious beliefs.  Such respect is part of their obligation as teachers and is required by the students’ right to freedom of conscience.  On the other hand, it is obviously inappropriate for science teachers to be passive in the face of efforts to minimize the role of evolutionary theory in modern biology or to dismiss evolution as only a theory.  Science consists of theories, but to say that evolution is a theory is not to say that scientists are more uncertain about speciation by natural selection than they are about the circulatory theory of blood, for example.  Science does not trade in certainties because the responsible practice of science requires that scientists must sometimes be willing to call into question the most central and basic tenets of their discipline.  But just as it is unlikely that future evidence will call into question the circulatory theory of blood, the enormous body of supporting evidence makes it similarly unlikely that evolutionary theory will be overturned.  Nonetheless, while biologists are not significantly in doubt about the theory of evolution, the political conflict over evolutionary theory continues.  In recent years, this conflict has played out in school districts around the nation when parents have objected to the inclusion of evolutionary theory in the curriculum and have sometimes sought to replace it with what they regard as a more inclusive alternative. 

The argument that students should be exposed to different schools of thought

A common suggestion is that Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC) should be taught in school alongside the theory of evolution.  Defenders, including former President George W. Bush, have argued that this is appropriate because “part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought.” (Schuman, 2005)  Who could object to that statement?  If IDC is a school of thought, and if students should be exposed to a variety of different views and opinions, then surely students should be exposed to IDC.  

While this initially might seem like a reasonable argument based as it is on the value of education and intellectual freedom, it is in fact based on several serious misconceptions.  To present IDC as if it were a scientific theory comparable to the theory of evolution is both deceptive and wrong.  If proponents of IDC are motivated by their religious convictions to promote the teaching of IDC in the science classroom, then they are not protecting the rights of their students.  They are violating them.

IDC and the school science curriculum: Kizmiller v. Dover

This argument was tested in the Pennsylvania Courts in the 2005 case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.  In October of 2004, the Dover, Pennsylvania, school board voted to approve the following resolution:

Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design.  Note: Origins of Life is not taught.

The resolution passed with six members voting for it and three against it.  In November of the same year, the board announced by press release that teachers would be required to read a statement to 9^th grade students taking biology in the Dover school system.  The statement read:

 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.

 Parents complained and brought legal action against the school board.  The members of the board who had voted for the resolution were subsequently voted out of office, and in a powerfully written decision, Judge John E. Jones ruled for the Pennsylvania court that the resolution was unconstitutional.  Defenders of the resolution, however, were confused by this ruling.  What could be wrong with the suggestion that students should keep an open mind?

The problem, as Judge Jones argued in his opinion, is not with the suggestion that students should keep an open mind, nor with the view that students should be exposed to a variety of different opinions.  The court found that the resolution and the statement violated the requirement that state institutions must not endorse a particular religious view.  The court proceedings include clear evidence that the intent of the school board members was to promote their religious view of creation.  After careful analysis of the text of the statement, the court further found that students to whom it was to be read would be likely to recognize it as endorsing IDC in opposition to evolutionary theory.  The principle of freedom of conscience, argued the court, does not support the view that IDC should be presented as an option in science classes.  It instead implies that students should not be presented with religiously motivated views when they are studying in a science classroom.

 Is it science?

Endorsement of IDC would not by itself constitute a violation,  but presentation of IDC in a science classroom as if it were a scientific theory is a violation.  The school board members argued that IDC is a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution and that its inclusion simply insured that students would be exposed to both sides of a live scientific controversy.  Again, after careful consideration of the evidence, the court found that IDC is not science.  The invocation of supernatural causation violates a fundamental precept of modern science.  Unlike evolutionary theory, IDC has not led to any productive research programs or proposals.  This fact cannot be attributed to a dearth of research funds, since there are many individuals and groups who would be glad to promote IDC research if there were productive ideas to support.  IDC is simply not a live area of scientific research.  For this reason, it is both wrong and deceptive to present it as if it were science.

 The enduring problem

 In Kitzmiller v. Dover, proponents of IDC received an important political and legal setback.  The court ruled that the school board’s resolution was unconstitutional, and the voters rose up to vote the board members out of office, replacing them with members who were not motivated by a desire to promote religious views in the science classroom.   In many respects, however, the problem remains unchecked in our nation’s schools.  In spite of the Dover decision, many science teachers have given in to public pressure and have stopped teaching evolutionary theory altogether.  In a study done in 2005, Randy Moore, professor of biology at the University of Minnesota, found that nearly 40% of the science teachers he interviewed were not teaching evolutionary theory.  More disturbingly, Moore found that about 20% of the biology teachers he studied were still teaching creationism in their biology classrooms. (Monteresky, 2005)

Freedom of conscience is a crucial value, and teachers have a weighty obligation to respect their students’ intellectual liberty.  But it is a mistake to think that this value is served when religious views are discussed in science classrooms as if they were true scientific alternatives.  Teachers who teach IDC as if it were science are not simply doing their students a disservice.  They are violating their students’ rights.

 

Bibliography

Kitzmiller v. Dover. US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 04cv2688, July 25 2005.

Monteresky, Richard. 2005. “Why Many Biology Teachers Aren’t Teaching Evolution.”  Chronicle of Higher Education, 7/22/05.  http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i46/46a00901.htm

Shuman, Jamie.  2005. “Schools should teach ‘Intelligent Design’ theory Alongside Evolution, Bush Says.”  Chronicle of Higher Education, 08/03/05.  http://chronicle.com/daily/2005/08/2005080303n.htm

 

 

---

Calendar

March 11, Sustainable Agriculture Seminar
3:10 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., 2115 Pearson, "Resources and pigs," Pete Lammers, Ph.D. candidate. Information: http://www.sust.ag.iastate.edu/gpsa/courses/susag600/homepage.html

March 25, Sustainable Agriculture Seminar
3:10 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., 2115 Pearson, Clay Mitchell, farmer, Waterloo area, will speak about his farming operation. Information: http://www.sust.ag.iastate.edu/gpsa/courses/susag600/homepage.html

April 1, Sustainable Agriculture Seminar
3:10 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., 2115 Pearson, "Reducing nutrients and pathogens from local streams to the Gulf - grassroots action by community volunteers, educators and livestock producers in the U.S. and Mexico," William Deutsch, Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures, Auburn University. Information: http://www.sust.ag.iastate.edu/gpsa/courses/susag600/homepage.html

April 8, Sustainable Agriculture Seminar
3:10 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., 2115 Pearson, "Practical approaches to increasing the impact of sustainable management research and development projects," Jeff Herrick, USDA-ARS. Information: http://www.sust.ag.iastate.edu/gpsa/courses/susag600/homepage.html

---

Bioethics in Brief