Debate of Biblical Proportions

The term “Intelligent Design” has been conjuring up strong emotions for many high school officials in the midst of the recent national debate. Some propose that the idea not be mentioned in classrooms, while others only fight it being taught in ninth-grade biology class.

Whether the teaching of Intelligent Design is unconstitutional depends on whether Intelligent Design is considered science or religious belief.

But what actually is Intelligent Design?

It depends entirely on who you ask.

“We see the Intelligent Design movement as just the latest movement of creationism – which has no place in a science class,” said Susan Spath, who is Public Information Project Director for the National Center for Science Education. This small non-profit organization in Oakland, Calif. defends the teaching of evolution in public schools and has been involved anti-evolution activity for 25 years.

“Intelligent Design is neo-creationism – same contents, new label,” Spath said.

Spath said she believes Intelligent Design is being used to sneak creationism into the classroom.

“Intelligent Design proponents claim evolution can’t do its job and therefore an Intelligent Designer is at work,” Spath said.

But Jay Richards, a research fellow at Acton Institute, disagreed.

“Intelligent Design is the idea that there is scientific evidence that there is a purpose for things in the universe,” he said. “Intelligent Design is based upon evidence that certain features of the universe give evidence of being designed.”

Acton Institute deals with religious ideas in free-market economies. Richards formerly worked at Discovery Institute, a public policy think-tank that primarily dealt with a research fellowship program for Intelligent Design. He also co-authored the Privileged Planet, which promotes the idea of a designed universe.

Whether the evidence exists does not change Intelligent Design’s religious aspect, Spath said.

“The inference that an Intelligent Designer is at work is not a scientific inference by any scientific standard,” Spath said. “The Intelligent Design debate is a political controversy, not a scientific one.”

Spath said she believes the Discovery Institute attempts to use Intelligent Design to promote its Christian right-wing agenda.

“The Discovery Institute is trying to legitimize themselves – but in a scientific sense they are irrelevant,” she said.

Richards said the NCSE focuses on motives rather than the evidence. “It’d be nice if the NCSE would actually look at the evidence [concerning Intelligent Design],” Richards said, mentioning that there are several arguments for Intelligent Design.

“Darwin has theological implications but that doesn’t make Darwinism religious,” Richards continued. “People can develop their own theological implications.”

If Darwinian principle is followed, according to Richards, each step of the evolutionary pathway in an organism must provide a survival advantage to the organism.

For example, if an organism that needs 10 more proteins to create any survival advantage acquired seven out of those 10 needed proteins, that would go against this mechanism, Richards said.

“We have discovered systems that go against this Darwinian mechanism,” Richards said. “Natural selection doesn’t have foresight.”

Richards added Intelligent Design is a scientific inference and there is evidence of Intelligent Design in many fields, including biochemistry, biology and physics.

“If I look at a stop sign or Mt. Rushmore and wonder if it was designed, I’m not being religious,” he said.

He questioned why looking at the bacterial flagellum in the same way is any different.

Intelligent Design is a philosophical belief, according to Boston University professor Wesley Wildman, who is the director of BU’s Science, Philosophy and Religion Ph.D. program.

“Intelligent Design claims that it is possible to infer that something is designed on the basis of its specified complexity – just think of the coordinated features of eye,” Wildman said.

He said Intelligent Design theorists use probability calculations to show that it’s virtually impossible for organisms to evolve in the time available. Wildman said he is skeptical of the accuracy of such calculations.

“Intelligent Design is a philosophical interpretation of current ignorance in science,” he said. “It bets that evolutionary biology will never explain what it cannot yet fully explain.”

It’s like a man who can’t swim standing on a sandbar in a rising ocean tide, hoping that the water won’t wash away his tiny patch of ground,” he added.

But Casey Luskin, co-president and co-founder of Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA), said he looks at the situation differently.

“Many people think Intelligent Design is an argument that says some things are so complex that they couldn’t evolve and therefore a supernatural being designed it,” Luskin said. “That is a negative argument that puts God in the gaps of evolution.”

What Intelligent Design actually does is it looks at human intelligence and the properties of things designed by humans – things that contain high levels of specific, coded information, such as computer software,” Luskin continued. “Intelligent Design theorists then look at organisms that contain the same property of specific, coded information, like DNA, to indicate design.”

Luskin said it was a common misconception that Intelligent Design has no evidence.

“Intelligent design evidence is based on empirical data, not religious scripture,” he said. “Within the last year, three peer-reviewed papers have been published on Intelligent Design.”

Luskin is a program officer in Public Policy and Legal Affairs for the Discovery Institute. He created IDEA four years ago at the University of California, San Diego, to provide a friendly forum to discuss the issues.

“I was aware that there was a lot of evidence that went against Neo-Darwinism,” Luskin said, noting that many colleges wouldn’t teach Intelligent Design. “Our goal was not to be dogmatic about views but to be inviting to anyone.”

IDEA clubs have formed at about 30 campuses nationwide, including Stanford and Cornell Universities.

Both Luskin and Richards, proponents of Intelligent Design, said they don’t advocate Intelligent Design to be required public school curricula, but Luskin said he would like teachers to have the academic freedom to teach it in science classes if they wished.

“Intelligent design might have a place in philosophy graduate seminars, but not in ninth-grade biology, which interferes with the basic teachings of science,” Spath said.

Wildman agreed that Intelligent Design does not belong in science classes.

“Intelligent design should be taken up wherever it is in schools where they handle worldview concepts, such as social studies or religion-depending on the school-not in science,” he said.