Understanding the nature of the world's creation is no small task. Was it created in six days, as it says in the first chapter of the book of Genesis in the Bible? Or did life forms evolve during billions of years, as evolutionary scientist Charles Darwin's theories suggest?\nAs differing viewpoints on the subject are bound to always exist, the most recent debates haven't focused on what actually happened to create life, but on what students should be taught in public schools. The newest challenge to theories of evolution -- the concept most frequently taught in science classrooms -- is intelligent design, or the idea that some biological structures are too complex to be a result of evolution and must be the work of an intelligent designer. \nEven though President Bush recently announced that he supports the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution in public schools, most \nlocal educators echo what Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the National Center for Science Education, emphasized in her lecture last week at the IU Auditorium: Intelligent design is not science, and therefore, does not belong in the science classroom. \nBut whether the concept of intelligent design belongs in another classroom, such as social studies, or even has a place in the belief system of supporters of science, is a completely different can of worms.
Science and religion\nAlthough intelligent design is a relatively new term in the creation debate, many argue it is simply another term for creationism -- the literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis, which rejects the idea of evolution with variation over time -- that purposely omits any reference to God. \nBut Scott said the term "intelligent designer" doesn't fool her into believing the argument is void of any religious connotations. \n"We all know who the designer is. We know it's not little green men," she said. \nOne of the biggest misconceptions of evolution, Scott said, is that evolution and religion are incompatible. In reality, both science- and faith-based creation theories lie on a continuum where they often intersect. \n"Most American Christians are somewhere in between," Scott said.\nIn fact, 40 percent of scientists believe evolution occurred, but it was guided by God, Scott said. \nA handful of students in IU biology professor Mike Wade's evolution and diversity course have expressed concern about their false assumptions that they must give up their faith in order to do well in class, he said. \n"It's OK to believe in both," said Wade, who admitted that faith is an important part of his life. \nBut if intelligent design were overtly taught in classrooms, it would cross the boundaries separating church from state, said Sander Gliboff, IU professor of the history of science.\n"How can you possibly argue that there's a supernatural intelligent designer that isn't based on religion?" Gliboff said. "Who else would it be if it's not God?"
No science, no room\nThese lack of answers in the intelligent design argument are one of the reasons critics argue it doesn't qualify as science and shouldn't be taught in science classrooms.\nWade called the idea of teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in science classrooms "ridiculous." \n"Intelligent design is not a scientific theory," he said. "Science is made up of hypotheses and evidence supporting those hypotheses. I don't see science as an explanation for everything, but as an explanation for taking apart the natural world and how it works, it's the only way I know it."\nIntelligent design supporters criticize evolution for its lack of explanation behind some of the most complex cell structures in existence, one of their main arguments. In turn, evolution supporters criticize intelligent design for throwing in the towel too early in the pursuit of an explanation. \n"That's a fancy way of saying 'Wow, this is a really tough subject to explain, so God did it,'" Scott said. "That makes for a really short lab. The fact that we don't know something does not mean that we should jump to the conclusion of design. If we don't understand something, we say 'I don't know yet.'" \nLisa Donnelly, a doctoral student in science education who has taught ninth-grade biology, said although nearly half of her students were somewhat offended by the theories of evolution, she wouldn't teach intelligent design even if she could because it's not supported by any kind of scientific evidence. She would, however, address the conflict if students brought it up. \n"You can't deny students their opinions," she said.\nSchools within the Monroe County Community School Corporation teach elements of evolution beginning in fifth grade with little complaint from parents or students, said Jean Schick, MCCSC science coordinator and advanced placement biology teacher.
The future of intelligent design\nUltimately, the decision of whether to teach intelligent design lies within the hands of the states, Gliboff said.\nSupporters argue it's only fair to teach intelligent design in science classes to balance the teaching of evolution. An increased number of bills have been introduced in state legislatures around the country proposing intelligent design be added to science curricula to balance evolution education. None have passed yet, and no such legal action has taken place in Indiana so far. \nSchick said she predicts intelligent design will never be taught in science classrooms in Monroe County, but it could find its way into a comparative religions class. \nDonnelly said she hopes it would be addressed in a social studies class, where it's perfectly legal to teach about people's religious views.\nAt the college level, the breadth of course offerings allows for much more freedom to explore the topic. Richard Miller, IU religious studies professor and director of The Poynter Center for the Study of Ethics and American Institutions, said Poynter has served as a hub for disseminating information about the debate for various members of the IU faculty. \nPoynter is working to compile resources that could help science teachers at the college and high school levels in addressing the debate, he said.\nBut Miller said his key concern is that "non-scientific ideas are finding a voice from political and cultural leaders who are unable to support them on scientific terms." \nThe problem goes beyond the evolution versus intelligent design debate, he said. \n"Many public policy decisions rely on sound science. The more we allow pseudo-scientific ideas a hearing, the more we place ourselves in peril when it comes to decisions about global warming and a host of other environmental and biomedical matters," Miller said. "There is the increasing danger of 'faith-based politics' that fails to heed scientific evidence in the public square"
