Intelligent Design or Evolution

Going back to the first contradiction to the age old theory that God created the world and all animals in it when Darwin first presented his theory in 1859 that evolution, not God or another being, was responsible for the vast diversity of species we see today there was a lot of controversy, and that controversy is still alive today.  In todays debate little has changed from the times of the Scopes trial in 1925, but now the sides both claim scientific backing to their claims.  In addition creationists have renamed their theory "intelligent design" and distanced themselves from the legal implications a religious affiliation could bring.  

Intelligent Design can essentially be defined as a scientific theory that supports the idea that an intelligent being (not necessarily of the christian faith, though that is the most common interpretation) purposefully designed the world as we know it, different species and all.  Different advocates have different views on the role of evolution within their theory of intelligent design, though the most common is a theory in which evolution is said to contribute to minor changes in already established species, and accepts the fact that the earth is older than the 6,000 years dictated in Genesis.  




People are completely entitled to their own beliefs on this subject in both my personal view and in the view of the constitution, but there has been a hotbed of debate recently with the question of whether or not to implement the study of the theory of Intelligent design in schools.  While you may be asking why this is even a question, it is important to realize that Intelligent Design is not explicitly prohibited from being taught in schools because it is not inherently a religious concept.  while it does follow many of the beliefs presented in Genesis, its holding that the designer of the intelligent design theory could be anything from aliens to a spiritual being, rules out it being outlawed purely based on its seeming religious affiliations.  However as Douglas Linder points out in his article Notes on Policy and Legal Issues Concerning "Intelligent Design Theory" it could be proven unconstitutional if it were to be implemented in a way which used it as promotion for a religious belief such as Christianity or Judaism over others. In this sense it is critical that intelligent design promoters ground their theory in scientific rather than religious evidence. Unfortunately for those who feel intelligent design is a legitimate scientific subject there is little to no scientific backing. One of the key arguments of the design theory presented in the article Intelligent Design? by Richard and Vittorio, is the idea that the Darwin theory of evolution as Darwin presented it cannot be applied to all living things or systems. And while it is true that not all speciation can be explained by Darwin's theory, evolution coupled with today's scientific knowledge proves the design theory's claim provides insubstantial proof because of the extensive other scientific facts that have been established since the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species such as the concepts of "gene transfer, symbiosis, chromosomal rearrangement, and the action of regulator genes" (Milner) which fill in any of the Holes Darwin missed. In addition to these facts which provide scientific evidence against rather than for Intelligent Design, the rest of Milner and Vittorio's paper presents the multitude of supposedly scientific examples such as the mousetrap example, and then disproves them soundly. In the case of the mousetrap example, intelligent design advocate Michael J. Behe states that design can be proven by the existence of "irreducibly complex"(Milner) systems such as a mousetrap or a human cell.  While these "irreducibly complex" systems may appear simple in design, such as a mousetrap, they are actually irreducibly complex because if you remove any one of the elements of the system the result is a no longer functioning system.  This idea is soundly disproven by Kenneth R. Miller in the following position statement, which points out that while the mousetrap may not function as a mousetrap if it is missing one of its elements, the elements can, both individually and in small groupings, function as other useful items such as a cutting board, paperclip, or fishhook.  This idea that systems are made up of other systems that may have previously served different purposes is a sound scientific fact that has been established by hard evidence in the scientific community; a fact that the advocates of intelligent design seem to completely ignore in their arguments that evolution is not an acceptable explanation for the variation in species we see today due to the fact that evolution or at least minor changes only take place in already established systems not in the creation of new ones.  

In conclusion while Intelligent design is a legitimate belief for the formation of species, it is not a legitimate scientific theory because the facts that it claims support its theory are only part of a much greater well of factual knowledge that refutes it.  In this sense it should be obvious that Intelligent design is not a legitimate topic to be covered in science classes.  But it isn't so simple.  In the same way that the teachings that the Earth is flat rather than round could be taught in schools as long as they proved their theory with non religious evidence (no matter how ludicrous it may be). It is not illegal to teach in schools something that is not factually based or even true (though it is highly uncommon).  In this way it is possible to legally teach Intelligent Design in individual schools which have ruled it a legitimate subject or in districts which have done the same, and the possibility of Intelligent Design becoming a common subject is even possible on a statewide level.  The essential legal question comes down basically to the age old hamiltonian and jeffersonian debate of whether or not it is the governments responsibility to regulate educational material and inhibit the teaching of non scientifically backed science material or if the right to teach intelligent design is tied up too closely in the right to free speech to be inhibited by the government despite the negative effects it would have on the factual integrity of the scientific world and the minds of students.  Does the government hold that power, or is the power of what to teach still reserved for the people?

Works Cited

"Intelligent Design." Intelligent Design. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 May 2014. <http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php>.

Linder, Douglas. "Notes on Policy and Legal Issues Concerning “Intelligent Design Theory”." N.p., 2001. Web. 19 May 2014.

Linder, Douglas O. "An Introduction to the John Scopes (Monkey) Trial." An Introduction to the John Scopes (Monkey) Trial. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 May 2014. <http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/evolut.htm>.

Milner, Richard, and Vittorio Maestro. "Intelligent Design?" Actionbioscience. N.p., Apr. 2002. Web. 19 May 2014. <http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html>.