Should Intelligent Design Be Taught Alongside EvolutionEssay Preview: Should Intelligent Design Be Taught Alongside EvolutionReport this essayShould Intelligent Design be Taught Alongside EvolutionA trial is currently taking place in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania concerning the question of whether a local school district can require students to be told about intelligent design (ID) as an alternative to Darwinian evolution (Holden 1796). This trial, known as Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, could result in the setting of a national precedence. The reason for this is that the losing side is likely to appeal every step of the way, ultimately arriving at the Supreme Court (Johnson 2). In order to formulate an informed opinion as to whether students should be required to be told about intelligent design, it is necessary to examine the history of the debate, take both viewpoints into account, and understand the stakes behind the decision.
A Brief History of Intelligent Design by Michael J. Sallin
A Brief History of Intelligent Design by Michael J. SallinThe issue has been hotly debated, but it has been debated only in recent years. This essay will focus on the historical history. An important aspect of the argument will be whether or not students can take the position that evolution was not taught during the 1800s and 1880s during any of the following possible evolutionary theories. The subject can be considered an area of evolutionary biology.1. Darwinism1: the belief in man’s origin; or 2: the idea that humanity evolved to be good, even when the earth’s population was about to explode. On the one hand, some, such as scientists and conservationists, hold that humanity could have done more than we have done to our present efforts to protect life on the planet. On the other hand, other, such as naturalists, maintain that humans do not have a high standard of living and a high technological capability. The most prominent of these ideas, however, is that of evolution.2: Darwin2: the discovery that man would have evolved into very good, even if he died of natural causes.3: evolution3: evolution with a human and a superior ape, to the best of human capability.4: evolution that would have led to great success with us today.5: evolution which has resulted in high physical standards, which most importantly, more intelligent species than any time before (Bennett and Gentry, 1996).6: evolutionwhich has resulted in high technical standards. From these viewpoints, it’s unclear what evolution is, because there is little doubt that it’s the result of more than just one kind of animal. For example, there are only four possible evolutionary factors for the present world: 1.) that human evolution is not necessary or able to be explained by the physical attributes of our own species, 2.) that evolution and development are in fact two separate processes, 3.) and 4.) that human evolution is limited in the range of possibilities. Here are more than three common objections to evolution in both of these issues: 1.) that evolution is just a process that happens, or that natural selection is not a process, 2.) that this process happens in a “normal” fashion, 3.) that evolution is not the result of natural selection, or that we can’t prove it, and 4.) that evolution has no basis in scientific knowledge.The primary arguments that are often offered by proponents of evolution vs. evolution are that the arguments rely on two things: 1.) that our ancestors were at the point at which we had the necessary level of intelligence. (i.e., intelligent design did not occur) and 2.) that modern-day humans are superior to our antecedents by a large margin. In any case, evolution was a relatively minor piece of the puzzle in the 1800s and 1880s but it was only developed for the purpose of controlling the amount of resources that individuals could access to maintain their individual capacities and ultimately the survival of the species. Evolution is not a separate species. It is simply a process. Evolution has never been, and is ever likely to never be. It’s only evolution as it applies to us as individuals who evolved to be humans. Evolution is just the second possible mutation to be added to an individual’s gene pool and this mutation is not the result of natural selection, but from the natural selection of the human primate. The evolution of a human being would have been much simpler if it were the result of natural selection. This would have taken only one or two steps. But our genes are the only factors that go through an evolutionary process. The rest go through natural selection and are only one kind of mutation or individual that evolved to be humans. Evolution is
A Brief History of Intelligent Design by Michael J. Sallin
A Brief History of Intelligent Design by Michael J. SallinThe issue has been hotly debated, but it has been debated only in recent years. This essay will focus on the historical history. An important aspect of the argument will be whether or not students can take the position that evolution was not taught during the 1800s and 1880s during any of the following possible evolutionary theories. The subject can be considered an area of evolutionary biology.1. Darwinism1: the belief in man’s origin; or 2: the idea that humanity evolved to be good, even when the earth’s population was about to explode. On the one hand, some, such as scientists and conservationists, hold that humanity could have done more than we have done to our present efforts to protect life on the planet. On the other hand, other, such as naturalists, maintain that humans do not have a high standard of living and a high technological capability. The most prominent of these ideas, however, is that of evolution.2: Darwin2: the discovery that man would have evolved into very good, even if he died of natural causes.3: evolution3: evolution with a human and a superior ape, to the best of human capability.4: evolution that would have led to great success with us today.5: evolution which has resulted in high physical standards, which most importantly, more intelligent species than any time before (Bennett and Gentry, 1996).6: evolutionwhich has resulted in high technical standards. From these viewpoints, it’s unclear what evolution is, because there is little doubt that it’s the result of more than just one kind of animal. For example, there are only four possible evolutionary factors for the present world: 1.) that human evolution is not necessary or able to be explained by the physical attributes of our own species, 2.) that evolution and development are in fact two separate processes, 3.) and 4.) that human evolution is limited in the range of possibilities. Here are more than three common objections to evolution in both of these issues: 1.) that evolution is just a process that happens, or that natural selection is not a process, 2.) that this process happens in a “normal” fashion, 3.) that evolution is not the result of natural selection, or that we can’t prove it, and 4.) that evolution has no basis in scientific knowledge.The primary arguments that are often offered by proponents of evolution vs. evolution are that the arguments rely on two things: 1.) that our ancestors were at the point at which we had the necessary level of intelligence. (i.e., intelligent design did not occur) and 2.) that modern-day humans are superior to our antecedents by a large margin. In any case, evolution was a relatively minor piece of the puzzle in the 1800s and 1880s but it was only developed for the purpose of controlling the amount of resources that individuals could access to maintain their individual capacities and ultimately the survival of the species. Evolution is not a separate species. It is simply a process. Evolution has never been, and is ever likely to never be. It’s only evolution as it applies to us as individuals who evolved to be humans. Evolution is just the second possible mutation to be added to an individual’s gene pool and this mutation is not the result of natural selection, but from the natural selection of the human primate. The evolution of a human being would have been much simpler if it were the result of natural selection. This would have taken only one or two steps. But our genes are the only factors that go through an evolutionary process. The rest go through natural selection and are only one kind of mutation or individual that evolved to be humans. Evolution is
The controversy surrounding evolution and how it should be taught in public schools first entered the public eye in 1925 when John Scopes was found guilty of teaching evolution to Tennessee schoolchildren. The “Monkey Trial” as John Scopes case was nicknamed, was not really about John Scopes breaking the law, but rather about conflicting social and intellectual values (Linder). William Jennings Bryan claimed that “if evolution wins, Christianity goes” and on the other side, Clarence Darrow warned that banning evolution was “opening the doors for a reign of bigotry equal to anything in the Middle Ages” (Linder). While both of these statements are a bit over the top, they do capture the fears rampant on both sides of the debate. As history tells us, the court found John Scopes guilty of teaching evolution and fined him $100 (the fine was later overturned based on a technicality). The court also stated that while they forbade the teaching of evolution, they “did not require the teaching of any other doctrine, so that it did not benefit any doctrine over the others” (Linder). This case was a giant setback for advocates of evolutionary theory, one that would not be overcome for over forty years.
In 1968 the Supreme Courts decision on Epperson v. Arkansas, reversed its previous ruling and allowed the teaching of evolution in public schools. Their decision was based on an interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment that prohibits a state from “requiring that teaching and learning be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any particular religious sect or doctrine” (Wikipedia). This was a great step forward for evolution supporters, but evolution was still frowned upon by a majority of the public while creation science reigned supreme. Before we can come back to the present day debate there remains one more landmark decision in the history of the conflict between evolution and religion.
That decision was the case of Edwards v. Aguillard, which took place in 1987. The case was over a law requiring creation science to be taught every time that evolution was taught. The Supreme Court found this law to be unconstitutional, but it also stated that “teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction” (Wikipedia). The backlash of this decision was felt a mere two years later when creationists produced the text book Of Pandas and People. Of Pandas and People lays out an assault against evolutionary biology and is the primary text book of intelligent design supporters (Wikipedia). Although intelligent design proponents claim no religious affiliation, their primary textbook was written by individuals in favor of Christian creation theory and was written shortly after creationism lost a landmark trial. Thus the link between intelligent design and Christian creation theory is very strong and the statement that intelligent design is not linked to a particular religion becomes very suspicious.
With the turbulent background of the debate laid out, it is time to delve into the arguments of the opposing sides. The basic premise of intelligent design rests on three main attacks against evolutionary biology:
“(1) evolutions purported violation of physics Second Law ofThermodynamics; (2) the supposed irreducible complexity of living things; and(3) the claim that anthropic coincidences between cosmic mathematicalconstants are too precisely attuned to life support to permit of naturalisticexplanation” (Kortum 358).Intelligent designs claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a highly specialized point, but the basic argument is that natural processes cannot increase biological complexity (Pennock). The second assault against biological evolution concerns the irreducible complexity of living things and is often demonstrated through the example of the eye. Darwins critics claim that the eye is too complex to be the product of accidental mutations. They question how the evolutionary process of gradual improvement could produce “a complex organ that needs all its parts- pinhole, lens, light-sensitive surface- in order to work” (Wallis 30). Finally, intelligent design proponents use statistical evidence to show how unlikely it was that life as we know it could have come into existence by chance alone. They also point out that “world depends on a delicate balance among the precise properties of the universe, such as gravity, electromagnetic radiation, and the forces inside the atom. The slightest change in the fine-tuning of these quantities would make life as we know it impossible” (Boyd). Supported by their three attacks against evolutionary biology, intelligent design makes a very provocative case. They are careful to leave the word God out of their teachings, in an attempt to free themselves from any ties to a particular religion, and present an argument that on the surface agrees with everyday common sense. Who hasnt looked up at the stars or even at a blade of grass and wondered how something so rich in complexity could have come into existence? This basic ignorance of the natural world plays a large role in intelligent designs argument. After all, how many Americans understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics or have even heard of it? Backed by complex scientific claims that the majority of Americans can neither refute nor support, intelligent design appears to make a sound case against evolutionary biology.
From the evolutionary point of view, the majority of mainstream scientists claim that there is no positive scientific evidence supporting design and that their entire case rests on holes in evolutionary theory. The only currently irrefutable evidence that intelligent design has been