2006/02: Should intelligent design be taught alongside evolution in Australian schools?
Images at right: Michaelangelo's impression of the Creation and (inset) Charles Darwin as a cartoonist saw him Related issue outlines: no related issue outlines
Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).
Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click the icon below to access the Echo news items search engine (2005 file) and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.
Search for listed newspaper items online - see end of this page
What they said ...
'Do I think that parents and schools should have the opportunity - if they wish to - for students also to be exposed to this and to be taught about it? Yes I think that's fine' Federal Education Minister, Dr Brendan Nelson
'Either ID belongs in the science classroom, in which case it must submit to the discipline required of a scientific hypothesis. Or it does not, in which case, get it out of the science classroom and send it back to church, where it belongs' Professor Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford University and Jerry Coyne, a professor in the department of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago,
The issue at a glance
On September 3, 2005, it was reported that a Sydney Christian school, Pacific Hills Christian School, had moved to incorporate the controversial Intelligent Design theory into its science classes as an alternative to the conventional theory of evolution.
High school students at Pacific Hills Christian School have begun to study ID theory, which claims to have scientific evidence that life on Earth was at least partly the work of a designer.
The school's decision appears to be one of the first occasions in Australia when the US-developed theory has been included within a school's curriculum. The Australian Science Teachers Association has strongly opposed any teaching of ID within schools in this country. The Association has, however, agreed that ID may be discussed as a 'belief system' in science classes.
The issue has already proved deeply divisive in the US, where the promotion of religion in schools is constitutionally banned. In September 2005, in a federal district court in the Pennsylvania state capital of Harrisburg, 11 parents brought a case against the school board from the school of Dover, Pennsylvania. Dover is the first school district in the United States to require its teachers to question evolution.
The United States President, George W Bush, has indicated that, in the name of balance, ID should be taught alongside evolution in American schools. In Australia, the federal education minister, Dr Brendan Nelson, made a similar remark.
Background
(The following outline of Intelligent Design theory is an edited version of the relevant entry from Wikipedia, an online encylopaedia.
The Wikipedia entry for Intelligent Design can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design)
Intelligent Design (or ID) is the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things make it likely that they have been produced by an intelligent cause or agent, not an unguided process such as natural selection.
Publicly most ID advocates state that their focus is on detecting evidence of design in nature and that they are not concerned to demonstrate the existence of a particular creator or designer.
Adherents of ID claim it stands on equal footing with the current scientific theories regarding the origin of life and the origin of the universe. This claim has not been accepted by most within the scientific community.
Despite ID sometimes being referred to popularly and in the media as 'Intelligent Design Theory', it is not recognized as a scientific theory and has been categorised by the mainstream scientific community as creationist pseudoscience. The United States National Academy of Sciences has said that Intelligent Design 'and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life' are not science because their claims cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own. Critics argue that ID proponents find gaps within current evolutionary theory and fill them in with speculative beliefs.
This criticism is regarded by advocates of ID as a natural consequence of philosophical naturalism, a belief system which rejects the possibility of supernatural causes as rational scientific explanations. Supporters of ID claim that there is a systemic bias within the scientific community against proponents' ideas and research based on the naturalistic assumption that science can only make reference to natural causes.
Key Concepts in Intelligent Design
*Irreducible Complexity
This is a controversial concept which considers that the generally accepted scientific theory that life evolved through biological evolution by natural selection alone is incomplete and flawed and that some additional mechanism is required to explain the origins of life.
The concept was popularized by Lehigh University biochemist and Fellow of the Discovery Institute Michael Behe in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, where Behe argued that there are biochemical systems which are 'irreducibly complex' because he saw no way in which these systems could be broken down into smaller functioning systems.
*Specified Complexity
The ID concept of specified complexity was developed by mathematician, philosopher, and theologian William Dembski. Dembski claims that when something exhibits specified complexity (that is, is both complex and specified, simultaneously) one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (that is, that it was designed), rather than being the result of natural processes. He provides the following examples: 'A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified.' He states that details of living things can be similarly characterized, especially the "patterns" of molecular sequences in functional biological molecules such as DNA.
*Fine-tuned Universe
ID proponents use the argument that we live in a fine-tuned universe. They propose that the natural emergence of a universe with all the features necessary for life is wildly improbable. Thus, an intelligent designer of life was needed to ensure that the requisite features were present to achieve that particular outcome. Opinion within the scientific community is still divided on the 'finely-tuned universe' issue, but this particular explanation and assessment of probabilities is rejected by most scientists and statisticians.
Internet Information
The Howstuffworks site provides a detailed explanation of the ID arguments and the criticisms made of them. (Please note, some patience is required in using this site as only a relatively small amount of information is given per page. However, the site repays persistence.) http://people.howstuffworks.com/intelligent-design.htm
The John Mark Ministries site aims to promote Christianity. The site has recently published an article written by Dr Andrew Ruys of Sydney University's Department of Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering titled 'Intelligent Design is Not Creationism'. The article is intended to demonstrate that ID is a set of scientific and mathematical theories, not a disguised argument for a Christian God as creator.
The article can be found at http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/1213.htm
Intelligent Design Network is an Internet site designed to explain and promote ID. It supplies argument and source materials intended to be used within schoools. It can be found at http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
ActionBioscience.org is a non-commercial, educational web site created to promote bioscience literacy by examining issues that will motivate the public to play an active role in bioscience education.
The site includes a special report reprinted from Natural History Magazine.
Three proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) present their views of design in the natural world. Each view is immediately followed by a response from a proponent of evolution. The report, printed in its entirety, opens with an introduction by Natural History magazine and concludes with an overview of the ID movement.
It can be found at http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html
Arguments against teaching intelligent design
1. Intelligent design offers no explanation for the diversity and complexity of life
According to many critics of Intelligent Design, the theory makes little or no attempt to justify its fundamental premise. What is meant by this, is that ID uses supposed flaws in evolutionary theory as proof of a different theory.
According to this line of argument, if, for example, there are gaps in the fossil record which mean that an evolutionary chain cannot be shown to exist for the full range of life it does not follow that intelligent design explains the varied and complex nature of life.
Put another way, flaws in one theory are not automatic justification of another. Many critics of ID claim that its proponents use questions about evolution as though they somehow proved the validity of ID.
This point has been made by Richard Dawkins, a British ethologist, popular science writer and Charles Simonyi professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford University and Jerry Coyne, a professor in the department of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago.
The professors have jointly argued, '... there is a hidden... "default" assumption that if Theory A has some difficulty in explaining Phenomenon X, we must automatically prefer Theory B without even asking whether Theory B (creationism in this case) is any better at explaining it.'
2. Intelligent design is not subject to scientific testing
Critics of the intelligent design theory are concerned that unlike true scientific theories it is not amenable to testing and verification. According to this line of argument, it should be possible to construct test situations that will either validate or disprove a theory, or, where this is difficult, to make observations of the natural world which will tend to either support or challenge a particular theory.
Those who are uneasy about intelligent design argue that it does not lend itself to such testing. It is, they argue, merely an assertion that one hypothesis, evolution, is inadequate, and therefore another, intelligent design, must apply. Such assertions are not readily testable. How do you prove or disprove the hand of an intelligent designer?
Mr Gary Thomas, the president of the Australian Science Teachers Association, has argued, 'The study of science is about what is measurable, testable and evidence-based.' Intelligent design, its critics argue, is none of these things.
Professor Richard Dawkins, a British ethologist, popular science writer and Charles Simonyi professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford University and Jerry Coyne, a professor in the department of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago have recently claimed, 'If ID really were a scientific theory, positive evidence for it, gathered through research, would fill peer-reviewed scientific journals. This doesn't happen. It isn't that editors refuse to publish ID research. There simply isn't any ID research to publish. Its advocates bypass normal scientific due process by appealing directly to the non-scientific public ...'
3. Intelligent design may supplant genuine scientific theories and debates
Critics of ID argue that it should not have the same status as other scientific theories as it is mock science. Those with this concern claim that ID may make evolution problematic for the wrong reasons. There are, it is claimed, aspects of life that evolution has difficulty accounting for. Those who oppose the popularising of ID are apprehensive that students will stop looking at and questioning aspects of our current scientific theories and will accept a pseudo theory that actually explains nothing but puts an end to debate, discussion and further scientific investigation.
Professor Richard Dawkins, a British ethologist, popular science writer and Charles Simonyi professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford University and Jerry Coyne, a professor in the department of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago have recently written, 'This is not a scientific controversy at all. And it is a time-wasting distraction because evolutionary science, perhaps more than any other major science, is bountifully endowed with genuine controversy.'
4. Intelligent design is creationism, a religious belief, presented under another name
Professor Richard Dawkins, a British ethologist, popular science writer and Charles Simonyi professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford University and Jerry Coyne, a professor in the department of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, recently wrote in an article republished in The Age, 'There is nothing new about ID. It is simply creationism camouflaged with a new name to slip under the radar of the US Constitution's mandate for separation between church and state.'
According to this line of argument, as the United States constitution requires a separation of church and state it is not permissible to teach religious theories in state run schools. Presenting intelligent design as though it were a scietific theory enables those American and other schools who wish to promote this theory to do so without appearing to be promoting a particular religious belief.
5. Intelligent design simply pushes the problem of cause or origin one stage further back
It has been claimd that as with all creationist theories, ID offers little help in terms of explaining the origins and nature of life. According to this line of argument, all ID does is push the problem back a stage. If evolution is dismissed as an inadequate explanation of the origin and development of life and some form of superior intelligence is seen as guidiong this development, then the problem becomes who or what is this superior intelligence.
Professor Richard Dawkins, a British ethologist, popular science writer and Charles Simonyi professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford University and Jerry Coyne, a professor in the department of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, have recently written, ' ... a moment's thought shows that any God capable of creating a bacterial flagellum (to say nothing of a universe) would have to be a far more complex, and therefore statistically improbable, entity than the bacterial flagellum (or universe) itself - even more in need of an explanation than the object he is alleged to have created.'
The professors then went on to argue, 'If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex designer. And it's no solution to raise the theologian's plea that God (or the Intelligent Designer) is simply immune to the normal demands of scientific explanation. To do so would be to shoot yourself in the foot. You cannot have it both ways. Either ID belongs in the science classroom, in which case it must submit to the discipline required of a scientific hypothesis. Or it does not, in which case, get it out of the science classroom and send it back to church, where it belongs.'
6. Intelligent design diminishes religious belief
Andy Hamilton, publisher of the Catholic Jesuit magazine Eureka Street, has suggested that the intelligent design argument has dangerous implications for religion.
According to this line of argument, any religious belief should fundamentally be about faith, not about rational proof. Those who attempt to use intelligent design to prove the existence of God are making religious belief dependent on a scientific theory.
Mr Hamilton has stated, 'It makes God dependent on scientific evidence. You are locking God into being a discernible actor within the world rather than the principal on which the world depends. You're domesticating God.'
Mr Hamilton has suggested that intelligent design is more about the search for security than truth. '[With faith] you don't have the security of absolute proof, it's always a move into the unknown.'
Arguments in favour of teaching intelligent design
1. Science should allow for the exploration of alternate theories
Many of the supporters of ID argue that all they are seeking is an opportunity for alternative theories to evolution to be explored. The Australian Education Minister, Dr Brendan Nelson, has indicated his support for ID being taught within schools in conjunction with evolution if that is what is desired by individual school communities. He appears to believe that it is a matter of intellectual freedom and freedom of choice.
Dr Nelson has stated, 'Do I think that parents and schools should have the opportunity - if they wish to - for students also to be exposed to this and to be taught about it? Yes I think that's fine. As far as I'm concerned, students can be taught and should be taught the basic science in terms of the evolution of man, but if schools also want to present students with intelligent design, I don't have any difficulty with that. It's about choice, reasonable choice.'
The principal of Pacific Hills Christian School, Ted Boyce, has stated, 'Evolution is taught in the school system as if it's a universally accepted theory and there's no other way to view the origin of man and creation. I have trouble with this. We would teach evolution as a theory and ID as an alternative theory.'
2. The theory of evolution has serious inadequacies
ID proponents have a number of criticisms of evolutionary theory. They argue that the complexity of life and the physical structures that make up living things is so great that it is highly unlikely to have occurred as a result of a process governed largely by chance genetic variations. They further argue that even the simplest single cell organisms are so complex as to have made their gradual chance development extremely improbable.
Supporters of the ID theory also note that there are a large number of gaps in the fossil record which mean that evolution is a long way from having been proved to have been the sole mechanism behind the richness and variety of life.
Barney Zwartz, the religious affairs writer for The Age, has noted, 'Intelligent design theorists say evolution is largely demonstrable but is not the result of mere chance. The traditional account of a steady but gradual development, they say, is at odds with the incredible complexity of even the simplest cell, whose structures are interdependent and could not develop without each other.'
3. The theory of evolution can be used as an anti-Christian statement
Though many Christians, including Christian educationalists, argue that though evolution is not intrinsically in opposition to a religious perspective, there were a number of supporters of the theory of evolution who use it as a means of attacking Christianity.
This point has been made by Sydney's Catholic Archbishop, Cardinal George Pell, who has he would be happy to see ID discussed in classes where evolution was sometimes taught in an 'anti-God way'.
Barney Zwartz, the religious affairs writer for The Age has argued that a number of the staunchest supporters of evolution are in fact prejudiced against any sort of religious belief. Zwartz has written, 'Take scientist Richard Dawkins, as extreme an anti-religious bigot as I've come across, who says anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is either stupid, insane or wicked. That's a radical moral judgement for a cool, dispassionate believer in rationality.'
4. The theory of evolution is as much a philosophy as an hypothesis
It has been claimed that in accepting evolution as a scientific orthodoxy, the science education given to young people in schools is seriously misleading.
According to this line of argument, evolution is a theory underpinned by a number of assumptions or philosophical positions. One of these assumptions is that life on Earth either came about as part of a closed system without any sort of intervention, divine or otherwise.
Bryan Patterson, the religious affairs writer for The Herald Sun, has written, 'Science has made some wild assumptions about evolutionary process. The intelligent-design movement has performed an invaluable service in highlighting much of Darwinian thinking that has rested on philosophical assumptions that have no firm scientific backing.
It's strange that while some scientists search for intelligent life forms elsewhere in the universe, the possibility that some intelligent life-form might have played a role in our own origins is automatically declared unscientific.
While the preference for a creator may not be scientific, neither is the preference to deny a creator.'
A very similar point has been made by Barney Zwartz, the religious affairs writer for The Age, who has written, 'The trouble is that evolution is an absolute article of faith with some scientists, at least as deep-rooted as God is with creationists. They believe science has or will have the answer to everything, and no other discourse is needed.'
5. Intelligent design does not discount the theory of evolution
ID is a composite theory. Its supporters do not argue against evolution as a mechanism that has helped to shape the development of life. Rather, they argue, that evolution alone cannot account for the nature and variety of living forms we see around us.
Barney Zwartz, the religious affairs writer for The Age, has presented this view. He sees evolution as important, but not the whole answer. In an article published in the Age on August 15, 2005, he wrote, 'Intelligent design theorists say evolution is largely demonstrable but is not the result of mere chance. The traditional account of a steady but gradual development, they say, is at odds with the incredible complexity of even the simplest cell, whose structures are interdependent and could not develop without each other.
This view has been summarised by Stephen Matchett writing in The Australian as '... the new version has God giving evolution a gentle shove in the desired direction every now and again.'
6. Intelligent design is not creationism
Supporters of ID argue that their position is not creationism. It does not make reference to any specific creator and does not seek to give scientific credibility to any genesis story, Christian or otherwise. Instead, its supporters claim, it criticises evolution from the point of view of an examination of the complexity of the physiology and biochemistry of life. It also uses probability data to query whether such complexity is likely to have come about randomly.
Dr Andrew Ruys of Sydney University's Department of Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering, has claimed, 'Intelligent Design theory makes no statement about a creator. It is a theory that challenges the randomness presuppositions of orthodox Darwinism.'
Dr Ruys has further argued, 'Intelligent Design theory is a branch of information science. It is based on the same mathematical principles that underlie criminology (specifically in the area of solving crime), detection of insurance fraud, artificial intelligence, and other areas of scientific endeavour involving detecting the acts of "intelligent agents" in contrast with random events and "system noise".'
Dr Ruys has argued that ID theorists have not shied away from testing and peer-review and that the relatively meagre publication record of ID theorists is the result of prejudice against the theory.
Further implications
ID has the potential to be incorporated into the curriculum of all Australian schools. To this point it has not aroused the level of controversy with which it has been greeted in the United States. In Australia though state schools are not to promote a particular religion, ID has not been seen as a challenge to this principle of separation of church and state in the same way that it has been in the United States. To this point, the federal Australian education minister appears ready to regard ID as merely one of a number of competing theories centring on the origin and development of life.
Critics of ID see it as something very different from this. They argue that it is at basis an anti-science proposition in that it ultimately seeks to provide explanations of natural phenomena that derive from outside the natural world. They claim that if such arguments are given the same credence as genuinely scientific theories then this represents a fundamental challenge to the development of scientific thought in Australia and in any other country where these ideas are promoted.
A growing Christian-based independent school movement within Australia provides a ready constituency for the taking up and promoting of ID theories.
Sources The Age
28/9/05, page 10, news report (with photo of John Scopes) By Julian Borger, `Darwin's theory subjected to another monkey trial'
22/9/05, page 3, news item by Misha Schubert and Jason Koutsoukis, 'Pell warns on curtailing unions'
11/9/05, page 22, comment by Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne, 'God and science don't mix'
25/9/05, page 19, comment by David Greentree, 'The answer to which comes first is "neither"'
28/9/05, page 10, news item by Julian Borger 'Darwin's theory subjected to another monkey trial'
The Australian
3/9/05, page 21, analysis by Roy Eccleston, 'Designed to put God into the gaps'
3/9/05, page 3, news report by Roy Eccleston, 'Christian school to teach ID theory'
22/9/05, page 9, comment by Stephen Matchett, 'If the design was intelligent, it wouldn't hurt so much'
The Herald Sun
28/9/05, page 34, news item, `Adam and Eve court fight'
4/10/05 page 37 comment by Bryan Patterson, 'Science is still hazy about the origins of the universe' NOTE: Listed items may still be available on the Web. To search for them, cut and paste any headline into the search-box below (or type the headline in exactly) then click the search button. The search opens in a NEW WINDOW.
To make your search more accurate, put " around the pasted headline, as in "This is the headline"
Search for listed newspaper items online - see end of this page
