Democracy, Evolution, and Intelligent Design

author : Marco Rosaire Rossi topic : civil liberties

by Marco Rosaire Rossi

Sometime in January, the 11th Circuit District Court is expected rule on whether the school board in Dover County, Pennsylvania can force its teachers to read the following statement before a biology lesson: "Darwin's Theory is a theory . . . not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence." The courts ruling is significant, and could have a major impact on the separation of church and state, the American education system, and the future of science.

People who want the court to rule in favor of the school board are hoping to squeeze the idea of "intelligent design" into public schools. Advocates of intelligent design believe the biological world, or at least certain aspects of it, are too complex and perfect to have been formed without intervention from a conscious intelligent being -- a God. They claim the idea is not a new form of Christian creationism and is scientifically valid. They are wrong on both accounts. Intelligent design is a position that creationists have been forced into through the secularizing of society - particularly in regards to the law. It is not a scientific idea drawn from observation, rigorous testing, and logical deduction. Allowing it into the classroom can only have detrimental affects on society.

The first time that the ideas of evolution were formerly put on trial in the United States was in 1925 when the governor of Tennessee signed into law the Butler Act. The law "prohibited the teaching of the Evolution Theory . . . (and) any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible." The law was challenged in the infamous case Tennesse v. John Thomas Scopes. The defense technically lost the case before the Tennessee Supreme Court, but they were able to make such a mockery of the idea of creationism and the unconstitutional nature of the law that many considered it a win. The law remained on the books, but was completely unenforceable.

Anti-evolution laws were to make their way through the courts again. The next major case was Epperson v. Arkansas (1968). The case involved a high school teacher who was caught between following her job, teaching the information in the text book, and following a law which prohibited evolution being taught in school. Unlike in Tennessee v. Scopes, this trial made it all the way to the United States Supreme Court, and this time the teacher won. The court ruled that legally prohibiting the teaching of evolution in favor of a creationist view was a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

The ruling was a setback for creationists and they had to change their tactics. Decade old laws banning evolution were stripped from the record and new laws emerged that required teachers to teach creationism alongside evolution. Again, this situation found its way before the courts. In Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), the Supreme Court determined the constitutionality of Louisiana's "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction" (also known as the less cumbersome Creationism Act). The law prohibited the teaching of evolution unless it was accompanied by a lesson in "creation-science" in all public schools. The Supreme Court struck down the law as a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Justice Brennan, writing for the majority, concluded that the law's intent was "to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind. The term "creation science" was defined as embracing this particular religious doctrine by those responsible for the passage of the Creationism Act." Essentially, the purpose of the Creationism Act was to restructure the science curriculum to conform with a particular religious viewpoint."

With the ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard the advocates for creationism faced another setback, and again tactics changed. Now, advocates of creationism are attacking evolution through the idea of intelligent design in the hope that they could meet the new legal standards. As Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California joked: "You have to hand it to the creationists. They have evolved."

Of course, to preserve academic freedom and good science, any scientific view could be brought into the classroom to challenge some or all the ideas embodied in Darwin's theory of evolution. The important point is that a science class deals with scientific ideas, not supernatural ones. The National Academy of Science and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have both looked into the idea of intelligent design. Their conclusions are that it is not a science. The reasoning is very simple. Science deals with things that are factual, testable, and logically inferred through evidence. The existence of an "intelligent designer" cannot be tested or verified in any objective way. Ideas of God, Creator, or "intelligent designer" may have a place as speculations in religion or philosophy, but it is not acceptable to include them in the realm of science. That point is frustrating for the creationists, but common sense to the scientists.

Democracy is fragile because it foundation is built on only a few principles. For that reason, those principles need to be fortified as much as possible. The separation between church and state, and the preservation of academic freedom are two obvious ones. The power of these ideas will dwindle if the court rules in favor of the school board and lets intelligent design creep into the classroom. Preserving the right of school teachers to teach evolution is not only important for the sake of science and education, but also democracy.