Why Intelligent Design Flunks Science And Why It Will Also Fail in Court
Richard L. Cravatts Ph.D.
November 29, 2005
?Our creationist detractors charge that evolution is an unproved and unprovable charade,? wrote the brilliant paleontologist and Harvard professor, Stephen Jay Gould, ?a secular religion masquerading as science.? Signaling that those charges are still part of a contentious discussion about the origins of life, Kansas?s Board of Education just recently adopted new standards to question the validity of Darwinian theory and open the door to alternate explanations for the origins of life?most specifically, the concept of ??intelligent design.?
Intelligent design is acknowledge by many observers to be the latest spin on the ?creationism? concept that Gould ceaselessly attempted to debunk as a true science; to him, and to other mainstream scientists, the movement was an attempt to legitimize religious and Biblical explanations for life?s origins with a scientific veneer. Frustrated by their defeats in court and inability to introduce creationism into schools as a viable, alternative theory to evolution, creationists disavowed religious sources for their philosophy and began to suggest that life began through the work of an intelligent ?designer,? a supernatural force responsible for the entire creation of the universe and all life within it.
The Kansas board's decision is one location where the challenge to evolution was successful, at least temporarily. In Dover, Pennsylvania, on the other hand, eight school board members who had worked assiduously to introduce intelligent design into biology classes were summarily voted out of office, an indication that the national debate on what is science and what is faith is far from satisfactorily resolved. One thing seems clear, though: with passions running high on both sides of the issue, the arguments seem destined for the Supreme Court, where evolution has been a regular topic since Tennessee's 1925 Scopes ?Monkey? trial and has had to answer charges by critics that it is no more of a hard scientific theory than creationism or intelligent design.
Unfortunately for ID?s supporters, the Court has repeatedly seen attempts to introduce this pseudo-science into public school curriculums as an attempt to advance a religious philosophy in a realm where the state cannot condone such an intrusion, and which is specifically prohibited by the First Amendment?s ?establishment clause.? The intellectual flabbiness of the ID theory is not even the issue which causes it to fail in litigation; what has condemned it more immediately is the fact that intelligent design chooses to challenge evolution specifically?the one area of scientific inquiry which many Christians feel contradicts fundamental Biblical dogma. The zeal to introduce an ?alternative? theory to evolution, one worthy of equal discussion in science classes, is coincidentally the very scientific theory that contradicts Christian faith, a detail that has not gone unnoticed by the Court.
Addressing this point in the 1987 Supreme Court case against the State of Louisiana for its attempt to insist that creationism be taught equally with evolution, the justices asserted that the effort to devalue the teaching of evolution was itself indicative of a veiled attempt to replace science with faith, that ?out of many possible science subjects taught in the public schools, the legislature chose to affect the teaching of the one scientific theory that historically has been opposed by certain religious sects.?
What was more, the Court has not historically been impressed with creationists? contention that their ideology was a scientific endeavor at all, merely because its adherents positioned it that way. In one 1977 case, Malnak vs. Yogi, for example, the majority of justices saw creationism for what it actually was: a religiously-based, quasi-scientific interpretation of how life was created and evolved. "Concepts concerning God or a supreme being of some sort are manifestly religious,? the Court found. ?These concepts do not shed that religiosity merely because they are presented as a philosophy or as a science."
Stung by their repeated defeats in introducing creationism as part of school curricula, supporters started to rework the way it was spoken about and described. The religious roots and basis for creationism, as well as specific references to God or a divine force, were sidestepped and not discussed. Articles of faith were transformed into science, unrelated to religious tradition or Biblical sources, and given the new name of ?intelligent design? with the hope that no one would notice the old barn with a new coat of paint. But the true sentiments of ID?s supporters have been made clear on numerous occasions. The Court itself noted that Edward Boudreaux, an expert witness testifying on behalf of Louisiana in the 1987 case, had admitted in his testimony ?that the theory of creation science included belief in the existence of a supernatural creator,? and further noted that ??creation scientists? point to high probability that life was ?created by an intelligent mind,? that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of humankind.?
That thinking is repeated in what has become the core ?textbook? of the ID movement, Of Pandas and People, published by the fundamentalist-supported Foundation for Thought and Ethics in Texas. Intelligent design supporters have urged school boards to include Pandas as a ?supplemental? science text, used in conjunction with the teaching of evolution, and claim quite specifically that ?In biology, the theory that biological organisms owe their origin to a preexistent intelligence.? Intelligent design,? the book reaffirms, ?locates the origin of new organisms in an immaterial cause: in a blueprint, a plan, a pattern, devised by an intelligent agent.?
When and if the intelligent design controversy finds itself at the Supreme Court steps, the justices are likely to determine that the ?intelligent agent? mentioned by ID supporters is actually God, and that supporters? attempts to make the theory co-equal with evolution is yet another opportunity to challenge the orthodoxy of scientific thought about evolution. The Court has used what they term ?a three-prong test? to determine whether the inclusion of creationism teaching amounts to a violation to the establishment clause of the Constitution.
The first prong, the Court has said, is that intelligent design instruction, if it is to survive legally, must have solely a secular purpose, that the primary intention of adding new theories of science to "teaching and learning" must not "be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma.? That means that intelligent design adherents will have to prove that their approach to explaining the origins of life is based on hard science that it offers a substantial body of scientific knowledge, since ?the Court found that there can be no legitimate state interest in protecting particular religions from scientific views ?distasteful to them,?? which has been the common and recurring theme of attempts by creationists to discredit evolution and dilute its use in schools.
Nor can the State inadvertently or directly advance or promote one religious view over another. While intelligent design supporters claim they are merely trying to advance an alternative scientific theory for students to consider in studying biology, the transparent attempt to deal with only the theory of evolution?the one part of science that seems to contradict the creation of life by the Divine?evidences the creationists? core intention: to promote a view, masquerading as science, that is consistent with religious faith. Even if the Court accepts the possibility that there may be factual merit to the intelligent design theory, the justices must still rule against the inclusion of theories which have at their base articles of religious faith. ?Whatever the academic merit of particular subjects or theories,? the Court wrote in the Louisiana case, Edwards vs. Aguillard, ?the Establishment Clause limits the discretion of state officials to pick and choose among them for the purpose of promoting a particular religious belief.?
The true intentions of the intelligent design fans, of course, are belied by their obsession with evolution as the one scientific theory they want to devalue and expel. They do not question, as skeptics have noted, theories of gravity or relativity or other scientific theories which are universally accepted as fact by thinking people. Parents and school boards who been content to watch decades of declining test scores in reading and math, are, however, obsessed with making sure that alternatives to the evolution ?theory? are made available to students, that the intelligent design theory is taught as a viable, though contradictory, scientific explanation of life?s origins. In doing so they are attempting to insert a theory which the Court has specifically condemned, noting that attempts to include creationism instruction in curriculums ?selects from the body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with . . . a particular interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular religious group."
Creation science,?? Gould wrote in 1988, ?has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage ? good teaching ? than a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise??
Richard L. Cravatts. Ph.D., a lecturer at Boston University, Tufts University, and Emerson College, writes frequently on social policy, housing development, law, business, and politics.
Intelligent design is acknowledge by many observers to be the latest spin on the ?creationism? concept that Gould ceaselessly attempted to debunk as a true science; to him, and to other mainstream scientists, the movement was an attempt to legitimize religious and Biblical explanations for life?s origins with a scientific veneer. Frustrated by their defeats in court and inability to introduce creationism into schools as a viable, alternative theory to evolution, creationists disavowed religious sources for their philosophy and began to suggest that life began through the work of an intelligent ?designer,? a supernatural force responsible for the entire creation of the universe and all life within it.
The Kansas board's decision is one location where the challenge to evolution was successful, at least temporarily. In Dover, Pennsylvania, on the other hand, eight school board members who had worked assiduously to introduce intelligent design into biology classes were summarily voted out of office, an indication that the national debate on what is science and what is faith is far from satisfactorily resolved. One thing seems clear, though: with passions running high on both sides of the issue, the arguments seem destined for the Supreme Court, where evolution has been a regular topic since Tennessee's 1925 Scopes ?Monkey? trial and has had to answer charges by critics that it is no more of a hard scientific theory than creationism or intelligent design.
Unfortunately for ID?s supporters, the Court has repeatedly seen attempts to introduce this pseudo-science into public school curriculums as an attempt to advance a religious philosophy in a realm where the state cannot condone such an intrusion, and which is specifically prohibited by the First Amendment?s ?establishment clause.? The intellectual flabbiness of the ID theory is not even the issue which causes it to fail in litigation; what has condemned it more immediately is the fact that intelligent design chooses to challenge evolution specifically?the one area of scientific inquiry which many Christians feel contradicts fundamental Biblical dogma. The zeal to introduce an ?alternative? theory to evolution, one worthy of equal discussion in science classes, is coincidentally the very scientific theory that contradicts Christian faith, a detail that has not gone unnoticed by the Court.
Addressing this point in the 1987 Supreme Court case against the State of Louisiana for its attempt to insist that creationism be taught equally with evolution, the justices asserted that the effort to devalue the teaching of evolution was itself indicative of a veiled attempt to replace science with faith, that ?out of many possible science subjects taught in the public schools, the legislature chose to affect the teaching of the one scientific theory that historically has been opposed by certain religious sects.?
What was more, the Court has not historically been impressed with creationists? contention that their ideology was a scientific endeavor at all, merely because its adherents positioned it that way. In one 1977 case, Malnak vs. Yogi, for example, the majority of justices saw creationism for what it actually was: a religiously-based, quasi-scientific interpretation of how life was created and evolved. "Concepts concerning God or a supreme being of some sort are manifestly religious,? the Court found. ?These concepts do not shed that religiosity merely because they are presented as a philosophy or as a science."
Stung by their repeated defeats in introducing creationism as part of school curricula, supporters started to rework the way it was spoken about and described. The religious roots and basis for creationism, as well as specific references to God or a divine force, were sidestepped and not discussed. Articles of faith were transformed into science, unrelated to religious tradition or Biblical sources, and given the new name of ?intelligent design? with the hope that no one would notice the old barn with a new coat of paint. But the true sentiments of ID?s supporters have been made clear on numerous occasions. The Court itself noted that Edward Boudreaux, an expert witness testifying on behalf of Louisiana in the 1987 case, had admitted in his testimony ?that the theory of creation science included belief in the existence of a supernatural creator,? and further noted that ??creation scientists? point to high probability that life was ?created by an intelligent mind,? that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of humankind.?
That thinking is repeated in what has become the core ?textbook? of the ID movement, Of Pandas and People, published by the fundamentalist-supported Foundation for Thought and Ethics in Texas. Intelligent design supporters have urged school boards to include Pandas as a ?supplemental? science text, used in conjunction with the teaching of evolution, and claim quite specifically that ?In biology, the theory that biological organisms owe their origin to a preexistent intelligence.? Intelligent design,? the book reaffirms, ?locates the origin of new organisms in an immaterial cause: in a blueprint, a plan, a pattern, devised by an intelligent agent.?
When and if the intelligent design controversy finds itself at the Supreme Court steps, the justices are likely to determine that the ?intelligent agent? mentioned by ID supporters is actually God, and that supporters? attempts to make the theory co-equal with evolution is yet another opportunity to challenge the orthodoxy of scientific thought about evolution. The Court has used what they term ?a three-prong test? to determine whether the inclusion of creationism teaching amounts to a violation to the establishment clause of the Constitution.
The first prong, the Court has said, is that intelligent design instruction, if it is to survive legally, must have solely a secular purpose, that the primary intention of adding new theories of science to "teaching and learning" must not "be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma.? That means that intelligent design adherents will have to prove that their approach to explaining the origins of life is based on hard science that it offers a substantial body of scientific knowledge, since ?the Court found that there can be no legitimate state interest in protecting particular religions from scientific views ?distasteful to them,?? which has been the common and recurring theme of attempts by creationists to discredit evolution and dilute its use in schools.
Nor can the State inadvertently or directly advance or promote one religious view over another. While intelligent design supporters claim they are merely trying to advance an alternative scientific theory for students to consider in studying biology, the transparent attempt to deal with only the theory of evolution?the one part of science that seems to contradict the creation of life by the Divine?evidences the creationists? core intention: to promote a view, masquerading as science, that is consistent with religious faith. Even if the Court accepts the possibility that there may be factual merit to the intelligent design theory, the justices must still rule against the inclusion of theories which have at their base articles of religious faith. ?Whatever the academic merit of particular subjects or theories,? the Court wrote in the Louisiana case, Edwards vs. Aguillard, ?the Establishment Clause limits the discretion of state officials to pick and choose among them for the purpose of promoting a particular religious belief.?
The true intentions of the intelligent design fans, of course, are belied by their obsession with evolution as the one scientific theory they want to devalue and expel. They do not question, as skeptics have noted, theories of gravity or relativity or other scientific theories which are universally accepted as fact by thinking people. Parents and school boards who been content to watch decades of declining test scores in reading and math, are, however, obsessed with making sure that alternatives to the evolution ?theory? are made available to students, that the intelligent design theory is taught as a viable, though contradictory, scientific explanation of life?s origins. In doing so they are attempting to insert a theory which the Court has specifically condemned, noting that attempts to include creationism instruction in curriculums ?selects from the body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with . . . a particular interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular religious group."
Creation science,?? Gould wrote in 1988, ?has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage ? good teaching ? than a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise??
Richard L. Cravatts. Ph.D., a lecturer at Boston University, Tufts University, and Emerson College, writes frequently on social policy, housing development, law, business, and politics.