What's Wrong With Teaching Intelligent Design in Our Public Schools?
This commentary was written for Knight-Ridder/Tribune Services and will be appearing in newspapers nationwide.
September 30, 2005
The debate over the teaching of evolution has once again transcended the classroom and is now front and center inside a federal courtroom in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The issue: should a school district in Dover Area School District be permitted to read a statement to 9th grade biology students that says in part: Because Darwins theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered . . . Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind.
This case isnt even about teaching Intelligent Design. Its merely about informing students that there are beliefs about the origin of life that go beyond evolution. This should not trigger a constitutional crisis, but with the trial now underway, its clear that this case has become an important touchstone in an issue that is supercharged with emotion.
While evolutionists argue that their theory of life should be the only one taught (or in this case mentioned) in schools, there is growing interest in teaching and talking about Intelligent Design which points to a superior being thats responsible for the creation of life. After all, it is science itself that continues to produce evidence to suggest that the creation of the universe was the result of an intelligent creator. We learn more each day about human DNA, which represents the code of life specific and unique to each individual.
A well respected British philosopher and atheist-turned-theist, Dr. Antony Flew, said he believes the most impressive arguments for Gods existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries.
New York Times bestselling author Lee Strobel finds in his book The Case for a Creator that questions about Darwinian evolution are leading some of the best and brightest in the scientific community to reject that theory.
Whats wrong with permitting students to examine all theories about the origins of life? By opening the classroom door to Intelligent Design, educators are not endorsing one theory over another. They are not teaching religion. They are simply fulfilling their obligation to give students an opportunity to study all sides of this issue.
President Bush has weighed in on the issue saying that he believes that education should permit different schools of thought to be presented in the classroom. As the President put it: Youre asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.
What happens in the federal courtroom in Pennsylvania will be watched closely across the country. The issue is being debated in nearly 20 states. And it likely will end up at the Supreme Court.
With a changing Supreme Court, no one can be certain how the high court would view such an issue. But we do know what the high court has concluded in the past. In a decision nearly 20 years ago in the case of Edwards v. Aguillar, the Supreme Court concluded that teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.
As the courtroom drama unfolds in Harrisburg, consider the words of one parent a mother of five who lives in the school district. Sheree Hied told a reporter: I think we as Americans, regardless of our beliefs, should be able to freely access information because people fought and died for our freedoms. Thats what America represents the freedom to explore all sides of an issue.
Jay Sekulow is Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, a Washington, D.C. - based legal advocacy group focusing on constitutional law.