Evolution and Intelligent Design in the classroom

New York Times special section on the subject. Free registration is required.

The future of evolution and intelligent design as they either are or could be taught in classrooms throughout the country is getting attention right now in Dover, Pennsylvania.

DOVER, Pa., Sept. 23 - Sheree Hied, a mother of five who believes that God created the earth and its creatures, was grateful when her school board here voted last year to require high school biology classes to hear about "alternatives" to evolution, including the theory known as intelligent design.

But 11 other parents in Dover were outraged enough to sue the school board and the district, contending that intelligent design - the idea that living organisms are so inexplicably complex, the best explanation is that a higher being designed them - is a Trojan horse for religion in the public schools.

With the new political empowerment of religious conservatives, challenges to evolution are popping up with greater frequency in schools, courts and legislatures. But the Dover case, which begins Monday in Federal District Court in Harrisburg, is the first direct challenge to a school district that has tried to mandate the teaching of intelligent design.

What happens here could influence communities across the country that are considering whether to teach intelligent design in the public schools, and the case, regardless of the verdict, could end up before the Supreme Court.

Dover, a rural, mostly blue-collar community of 22,000 that is 20 miles south of Harrisburg, had school board members willing to go to the mat over issue. But people here are well aware that they are only the excuse for a much larger showdown in the culture wars.

"It was just our school board making one small decision," Mrs. Hied said, "but it was just received with such an uproar."

For Mrs. Hied, a meter reader, and her husband, Michael, an office manager for a local bus and transport company, the Dover school board's argument - that teaching intelligent design is a free-speech issue - has a strong appeal.

"I think we as Americans, regardless of our beliefs, should be able to freely access information, because people fought and died for our freedoms," Mrs. Hied said over a family dinner last week at their home, where the front door is decorated with a small bell and a plaque proclaiming, "Let Freedom Ring."

But in a split-level house on the other side of Main Street, at a desk flanked by his university diplomas, Steven Stough was on the Internet late the other night, keeping track of every legal maneuver in the case. Mr. Stough, who teaches life science to seventh graders in a nearby district, is one of the 11 parents suing the Dover district. For him the notion of teaching "alternatives" to evolution is a hoax.

"You can dress up intelligent design and make it look like science, but it just doesn't pass muster," said Mr. Stough, a Republican whose idea of a fun family vacation is visiting fossil beds and natural history museums. "In science class, you don't say to the students, 'Is there gravity, or do you think we have rubber bands on our feet?' "

Evolution finds that life evolved over billions of years through the processes of mutation and natural selection, without the need for supernatural interventions. It is the foundation of biological science, with no credible challenges within the scientific community. Without it, the plaintiffs say, students could never make sense of topics as varied as AIDS and extinction.

Advocates on both sides of the issue have lined up behind the case, often calling it Scopes II, in reference to the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial that was the last century's great face-off over evolution.

On the evolutionists' side is a legal team put together by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. These groups want to put intelligent design itself on trial and discredit it so thoroughly that no other school board

 

KnightWriter:
What I'd like to discuss here are the merits of both sides as they pertain to public education and the ramifications of whatever decision that is made. What I would not like to see discussed here are the individual merits of creationism and evolution (at least not in great detail, and certainly not in a classic "evolution vs. creationism" sort of way), or anything else that distracts from the main issues at hand.

This case centers around the classroom. With that in mind, what do you have to say about evolution, intelligent design and their places in public education?

I suspect that this would be difficult, as the "individual merits of creationism and evolution" are at the centre of the debate. In particular, the fact that evolution is science while creationism (including ID) are not. Obviously there are those here who disagree, but the point is that I don't see how the education issue can be discussed without getting quite involved in the old evo vs crea conflict.

Peez

 

Peez is right, but I will do my best.

There are two forms of ID, the religious and the secular. The religious one is really the only one in question because it is what more people believe (and the secular one is so simple that it can be explained in just a second and in passing. Also it ultimately makes no sense ['where did the ID'er come from?' is an honest question. Any answer renders the theory useless]).

Neither form of ID offers understanding to the world around us. More traditional scientific theories do. Seriously, it is the difference between a real explanation that makes sense and honesty about our limits, and nothing more than 'God/ID'er did it.' Which one actually explains something? Given that science tries to understand the world around us; just that should be enough to end the debate right there.

Just an example of the above; if I want to know how the planets formed, the ID?est and religious answer would be ?God/ID?er did it.? The scientific answer would be something along the lines of matter from dead stars came back together over millions of years due to the force of gravity?

In short, something that makes sense, is backed up by some amount of direct evidence, and gives a good amount of understanding, something that ID never gives alone, and religious explanations say does not matter (understanding things like this does not make us more Christ-like or bring us closer to God, and we could never understand the workings of God anyway). It is possible to somehow tie God into it, like saying ?God set it up,? but the evidence for God actually doing that is nothing when compared to the evidence for how planets formed (relative to other theories as to how the planets formed). It would be like saying ?oh yeah, according to weather maps, a hurricane hit New Orleans, but it was caused by UFO?s.?

Science is all about understanding how things happen, how can one even honestly argue that ID/God belongs in a science classroom is beyond me when the things above are taken into account?

I have a good bit more to say about ID, but since this thread is meant to focus on the educational aspects, I am trying to limit myself.

 

The problem with intelligent design is that as an educational theory, it doesn't do alot of educating.

The situation is different, obvious, as Australia hasn't tried to deny religion from education (being an offical, Anglican nation; which incidently dilutes the influence of religion since it's hardly tempting someone via exclusion) so it gets it's own class. But ultimately, we learned about religion in religion, and science in science.

Simply put, ID explains everything (via divine omnipotent and omniscience) and thus, explains nothing. Evolution - which most people don't understand as they give you LaMarckian, not Darwinian, theory - doesn't explain the genesis of the evolution of life, but it doesn't purport to. It doesn't say, "Yes, we know where life came from: God" and so remains far less blindly arrogant in it's assertion.

Frankly, this is another reason why I love visiting the US, but would never want to live there. Anyone that can present ID as a serious, scientific educational experience and a) not have the balls to admit it's a foothold for religion in education, and b) not be embarrassed at the inherent irony of such an action, does not instill me with confidence as being a neighbor (literally or not).

E_S

 

I agree with ES, and while I am very religious, I believe God created the universe, I think science class should teach science. I also do not think that religion need to teach science, and when they do it sounds pretty silly, especially when they have to include science in the name of the religion. I have strong enough religious conviction to admit that although I do not understand everything, even things that may or may not contradict what I believe in will not sway me to overturn the things I believe in.

 

This may seem like an ignorant question until you factor in I'm not an American and my flatmate isn't here to ask; do you have religious education classes at school in America?

E_S

 

No, we learn about other religions in social studies, but it's in a matter-of-fact way. No preaching, or telling kids that one religion is right or anything, just explainging different cultures.

shred edit: I've been waiting for them to start a new evlotution thread. I'm ready to kick some ass. I mean ..... argue maturely.

I believe that intelligent design should not be tought in classrooms. Like mosts scientists say, inteligent design is not real science. More than the fact that this theory was created after the 1987 supreme court ruling that creation science couldn't be tought alongside evolution, intelligent design has no scientif proof whatsoever. What it really revolves around is their belief that evolution is wrong. Which simply isn't true. Intellilgnet disign proponents take just a little bit of all the evidence out there and use it as a basis for their whole theory. The fact that life couldn't have developed without a creator, simply is scientificly innacurate. Scientists who aren't fundmamentalist Christians look at a broader spectrum of evidence, and have found evolution to be the best explanation for how life began. Regular people may believe what they want, but they're not scientists.

Intelligent Design propents don't even use the scientific method, nor conduct experiments. They say what they think but have no proof. Really, about 99% of all the scientists who support intelligent design have a religious agenda. Mainstream scientists laugh at ID. It's funny how people don't realize this though: the poeple supporting ID are all fundamentalists Cristians and the people who are mad at it are usually scientists or science teachers. What does that tell you? It tells me that ID is crap, and evolution is the only theory that needs to be taught in school.

 

I attended a private school in grades 1-5. We had history class and english class and math class and one hour a day devoted to a Bible story. Public schools do not have a Bible class. There are to my knowledge college courses devoted to religion but are not in themselves a religious class like going to Sunday school.

What the aim of the heads of the new creationsism/ID movement is control. Their end goal is not ID along with Evolution, but ID in place of Evolution. They literally want to remove science from schools.

Ever hear of Deometry?? Basically it is geometry, but in order to pass the class you have to understand that God created lines, points, and circles: "The problem we ran into is that you can't measure the Earth without crediting God with having created it,"-- Topeka High math teacher.

Now, in this class you get introduced to the Pythagorean Theorem late in the semester. I cropped this from the Swift report:

Whereas students in the past students would have used Pythagoras' Theorem to solve problems involving right triangles, now they'll learn something more basic: that God created the triangle, the leg and the hypotenuse.

"The classic way of teaching Pythagoras is to say that a^2 + b^2 = c^2 and have students solve for 'c,'" explains Bresnahan. "Now we're teaching students something much more essential: how to solve for 'G.'"

The impact? We are already falling behind in math and science, if we allow this kind of education to go along with and then eventually replace what is in place now then I think the United States is well on its way to becoming a third world nation.

 

Well, it's not so clear cut.

What if say, you are a non religious individual... such as myself. And what if this non religious individual considers himself a cultured person who loves to learn... such as myself.

I see no problems with different viewpoints being taught in school, just as long as it is not stated as being the "correct" one. Because school is supposed to be a place of debate, discussion and broadning of horizons.

Honestly, I enjoyed seeing spiritual or religious viewpoints in several of my classes because it kept discussion interesting and exposed me to more of the world and its people.

Some people are so afraid of being exposed to anything else that I believe they shut themselves off from a terrific learning experience, even if they may not realize it.

Just as long as it is not the only viewpoint being offered and that it is not being forced down as the correct one, yadda, yadda, yadda.

 

Intelligent Design propents don't even use the scientific method, nor conduct experiments. They say what they think but have no proof. Really, about 99% of all the scientists who support intelligent design have a religious agenda. Mainstream scientists laugh at ID. It's funny how people don't realize this though: the poeple supporting ID are all fundamentalists Cristians and the people who are mad at it are usually scientists or science teachers. What does that tell you? It tells me that ID is crap, and evolution is the only theory that needs to be taught in school.
---------------------------------------------------------

"Mainstream scientists" meaning the ones who are liberals and have an agenda to promote as well... There are many scienetists, though in the minority, that hold Ph.D's and support creation science.
And as for "not using the scientific method, or conduct experiments" tell me, isnt the scientific method "observing something thats happening and asking why?" Have any of the scientests "observed" evolution happening (not one beak type to another, but reptile to bird?) Were any of them there when the "big bang" (which has no scientific merits to explain it) supposedly created the world and all the other galaxies? The fact is, I believe God created us. However, I would not mind and would support teaching it as a THEORY which is what it is... you cant prove it, anymore than you can prove evolution... If you could, it would have been done a long time ago.

 

But that's just it, this is not a debate of "viewpoints". I think my posts are generally glossed over, and I have put this out a few times and it gets ignored. The first people to use ID as a way to get religion into the classroom as a replacement to Evolution admitted it is as being a trojan horse. They are not interested in science, they are interested in presenting Creationism as sounding like science just enough to influence schoolboards and parents who might not know any better. It's a sham.

 

Um, last I check I was not Christian or a fundamentalist...

Oh well. I guess I'm a jerk because I don't mind hearing other viewpoints in an educational institution so I can broaden my horizons, even if I don't believe in them.

 

I see no problems with different viewpoints being taught in school, just as long as it is not stated as being the "correct" one. Because school is supposed to be a place of debate, discussion and broadning of horizons.

Yes, but the place to learn about different viewpoints is social studies, it's a cultural thing. In science your learn about one viewpoint and one viewpoint only: the scientists.


Just as long as it is not the only viewpoint being offered and that it is not being forced down as the correct one, yadda, yadda, yadda.

In science class, evolution should be the only viewpoint offered and should be taught as the correct one becuase that's what it is. This is in just science.

shred edit:

But that's just it, this is not a debate of "viewpoints". I think my posts are generally glossed over, and I have put this out a few times and it gets ignored. The first people to use ID as a way to get religion into the classroom as a replacement to Evolution admitted it is as being a trojan horse. They are not interested in science, they are interested in presenting Creationism as sounding like science just enough to influence schoolboards and parents who might not know any better. It's a sham.

I read your post and this one and I think you are exactly right.

Oh well. I guess I'm a jerk because I don't mind hearing other viewpoints in an educational institution so I can broaden my horizons, even if I don't believe in them.

Learning about different viewpoints is a cultural thing. It shouldn't be tought in science class. Science class is reserved for the viewpoints of only scientists. Period. Once again, theyn have a class where you can learn about different viewpoints: it's called social studies.

 

Look, why cant it be presented as a theory? I dont care that evolution is taught to kids in school, but stop presenting it as dogma! Its not, and never has been! You cannot prove evolution beyond a reasonable doubt (lacking transitionary fossils, no scientific standing as for how the big bang happened in the first place, how would certain body parts evolve into others, why would natural selection push for the changes...) Neither can you prove ID... Present them both, and say "this is the proof for both, this is what doesnt work in both, you make up your mind"


"In science class, evolution should be the only viewpoint offered and should be taught as the correct one becuase that's what it is. This is in just science."

Prove it... thats all i have to say... show me the undeniable proof for evolution, that cannot be interpreted to fit with a creeationists viewpoint.

 

Look, why cant it be presented as a theory? I dont care that evolution is taught to kids in school, but stop presenting it as dogma! Its not, and never has been! You cannot prove evolution beyond a reasonable doubt (lacking transitionary fossils, no scientific standing as for how the big bang happened in the first place, how would certain body parts evolve into others, why would natural selection push for the changes...) Neither can you prove ID... Present them both, and say "this is the proof for both, this is what doesnt work in both, you make up your mind"

Nope. The point is that evlotution is proved. Sorry, but it is. Go ask a regular scientist. ID is not proved at all. Putting those two theories on the same level is just stupid. And yes, evolution is a theory, but that says nothing about how much it's proved, becuase a theory doesn't always mean something that's contraversial. That fact that the earth revolves around the sun is a theory. Of coarse, we don't doubt that, now do we?


"In science class, evolution should be the only viewpoint offered and should be taught as the correct one becuase that's what it is. This is in just science."

Prove it... thats all i have to say... show me the undeniable proof for evolution, that cannot be interpreted to fit with a creeationists viewpoint.

First of all, you're not a scientist. Second of all, your reasons stated above for why they haven't proven evolution are just a fraction of all the evidence out there. That evidence alone in no way can suport ID if, evolution can be proved with much more evidence, but yes, I will prove it, I'll get a link off google, although I'm sure you can do that.

 

"Go ask a regular scientist"

Again, you ignore the fact that there are many (though not as many as the ones who support evolution) creationist scientists. And you havent answered my question from much early, about the scientific theory. Isnt it observing something and wondering why its happening? Did scientists ever see what they claim is evolution, or the Big Bang?

And as for the link, I would appreciate that, though I doubt it will solve anything...

 

First off let me finsh something for you:

Again, you ignore the fact that there are many (though not as many as the ones who support evolution) creationist scientists..... who don't count!

And you havent answered my question from much early, about the scientific theory. Isnt it observing something and wondering why its happening? Did scientists ever see what they claim is evolution, or the Big Bang?

That's ridiculous. We never witnessed dinosaurs living, so I guess they never existed.

 

Look, why cant it be presented as a theory?

Because it is not a theory, doesn't even come close to qualifying as a theory, and those who are driving to get it into schools know this but as I said...again...they could care less. They want their Bible to replace your math book. What? I mean, do you think I'm just making this up?

I dont care that evolution is taught to kids in school, but stop presenting it as dogma!

It's not presented as dogma, it is presented as a science in conjunction with the scientific method.

(lacking transitionary fossils, no scientific standing as for how the big bang happened in the first place, how would certain body parts evolve into others, why would natural selection push for the changes...)

All this is explained in Evolution, so you apparently do not know much about it. I'll give you one.
Transitional fossile, there have been millions found. MILIONS. But no matter how close one fossil group may be to another the creationists will shoot it down by saying they now need the transitional fossil between those. Basically they will never agree with the finding of transitional fossils until every bone that has ever existed in the history of Earth is sitting in front of them, and perhaps not even then.

This is the truly revealing part of this whole story, creation/Id'ers demand more proof yet present zero proof themselves and demand ID be accpeted as a theory.

Prove it... thats all i have to say... show me the undeniable proof for evolution, that cannot be interpreted to fit with a creeationists viewpoint.

Let me put it like this; when Darwin first proposed Evolution to the public scientists around the world scoffed. "What?! Evolution?! Mutation?! this guy is nuts! We will use our scientific knowledge to destory this Evolution. We will examine Evolution and show that it is nonsense."

So, the scientific method was applied to Evolution by scientists around the world, peer reviewed like no other theory before it, and it passed. "Oh, this actually works. This is right. Guess we were wrong."

Shredder said: I read your post and this one and I think you are exactly right.

 

But what does that have to do with the scientific theory? How to dinosaurs fit with that, they arent a theory that needs to be proven, they're creatures that once existed on Earth?


And give me the links to the photos of "millions" of transitionary fossils please... as I've never seen more than 5 or so, that could be interpreted either way...


Do you know the huge difference between a reptiles breathing system, and that of a birds? How would the inbetween forms function without the thing keeling over because it couldnt get oxygen?

 

The problem creationists have with dinosaurs is the time they existed, millions of years ago, which does not fit with the figure of thousands of years ago that they want you to believe because it conflicts with their Bible.

I read about a presentation given at a new creationist museum in which the presenter was telling children that dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark...a pair of all of them. Yeah, somehow this one guy got millions of baby dinoaurs on his boat.

This is the thinking creationists want in schools in place of evolution.

 

And you want them to believe that all of a sudden something kinda sorta happened involving an explosion and that now we're all here, through random and meaningless genetic mutations and pure chance? And then you want to tell them not to cheat on a test because its "wrong"

 

So by your question I take it you like the idea that one guy was able to get millions of baby dinosaurs on a boat and want it taught in place of evolution?

 

How do we know that dinosaurs were still alive by the time of the Flood? Millions of species have become extinct by our time, isnt that true, so why would there have had to been thousands of species of dinosaurs, if any, left?

And as for you, I take it you'd prefer to avoid my question rather than answer it head on...


And no, I have never once stated (in this thread or others) that we should teach kids about Noah's Ark...

 

SHREDDER, I am a scientist, a medical scientist. The Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory. There is very little chance that it can ever attain the correct qualifications to move it from a theory to a law of science. There's evidence that supports it as being the correct answer over everything else, but it is not a fully proven, irrefutable fact in science.

That said, ID should only garner nothing more than a passing mention in any general science course. Why? Because that's about as much as you can really say about it. What it amounts to is that whether evolution or creationism is the fashion, it occurred not because of a random happenstance of matter/energy conversion, but because of some higher figure. That's it. What more can you teach about ID really? That this plant here exists because an ID made it. This species of fish have appearred because the ID decided it wanted another one, either through forcing another evolutionary niche to appear, or creating it directly.

Science classes are for science. All of science, not just teaching Evolutionary Theory. It's about giving people an understanding of the world that exists around them, and how it all works. Part of that is teaching the fundamental building-blocks of science, and then expanding into the different areas of speciality from there. A large portion of those building blocks when it comes to biological-based science require the acceptance of evolution so that when you are actually moving on with practical experimentation in regards to genetics, hybridisations, further on into molecular biology, etc. you can follow what is going on. Trying to present both the evolutionary explanations and any ID-based ones at the same time with both slow down any teaching, as well as cause complete confusion as you are trying to resolve two things that could become contradictory in their basic nature.


Look at it this way. You are taught basic physics and the laws that come with them when in school. Yet if you go on further into physics as a career and look at some of the theoretical physics that deal with quantum mechanics, super-string theory, some of the emerging theories in astrophysics, a few of these "fundamental" laws start to become a bit hazy, and exceptions and gaps in them appear in relation to these areas. But are you taught in high school that the Laws of Motion, the Theory of Relativity, etc. work most of the time but at others when you apply certain things they start to have little bearing on matters? No, you are taught that these are what happen and when you have moved into a place where you understand how the immediate world around you works, then you can be introduced to the problems that start to occur with these basic fundamentals when you can start to resolve the differences in terms of applicational issues.


Try doing that to high-schoolers, and you will have those kids that are already struggling to understand science as it is completely and utterly lost, along with having to take up extra time that does not exist by presenting two cases at once. There is nothing wrong with allowing people to know that there are some alternate but not universally accepted theories on life out there, and if you were in the last years of school it could provide a great subject for a class-based discussion to help further the understanding that people have in regards to science, but it is not something that will in any way provide a benefit to furthering the understanding that a person has of science, which is the point of science classes.

 

But what does that have to do with the scientific theory? How to dinosaurs fit with that, they arent a theory that needs to be proven, they're creatures that once existed on Earth?

You're missing my point. You said that scientists have never observed evolution. But they also have never observed a dinasuar living. Point is: You don't need to witness something to prove it's happened. Scientists don't need to pysically see a creature evolve. The have other proof.