Evolution and ID-Can They Coexist in the Classroom

7/30/2019 Evolution and ID-Can They Coexist in the Classroom

1/13

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design:

Can Both Coexist in the Classroom, and Should They?

INTRODUCTION

One of the most hotly debated issues in twenty-first century American culture concerns how science is

taught in Americas classrooms. Many battles are being waged in school districts across the country as

proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) theory seek to have a forum in the public school classroom alongside

evolutionary theory. In January 2005 a school district in Cobb County, Georgia, was ordered to remove stickers

from biology textbooks which cautioned students that evolution was a theory, not a fact, and as such needed to

be approached cautiously and examined critically. A political firestorm erupted in August 2005 when President

Bush remarked that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools, bringing immediate charges of the President

violating the constitutional mandate of church-state separation. A court trial, brought by the American Civil

Liberties Union, began in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on September 26, 2005 in which the Dover school district is

facing the charge of promoting religion by requiring students to hear a statement on Intelligent Design before

ninth-grade lessons on biology regarding evolution.

Evolutionists claim that advocates of ID, of whom Bible believing Christians compose the vast majority,

are scientifically ignorant and willfully nave. However, it seems that Darwinists deliberately are attempting to

keep schoolchildren ignorant of the many flaws and inconsistencies in evolutionary theory. Therefore, I have

provided below a few thoughts regarding evolution and the ID controversy. First, I comment on and critique an

article that appeared in a recent edition ofNational Geographic regarding the subject of evolution. I will show

how the author uses fallacious arguments and presents the common view of evolution from a naturalistic

worldview, a worldview based not on scientific principles but on philosophy. Next, I offer a few critiques that I

see as significant flaws in evolutionary theory. The flaws I discuss are a small sample of the kinds of issues that

Intelligent Design activists seek to have brought into classroom discussion, not to promote a particular religious

viewpoint, but merely to point out that evolution does not provide a comprehensive and complete explanation

for the origin of life and the inherent complexity found in biology. I will finish by making the argument that ID

should be taught alongside evolution in the classroom, because one is just as much a mixture of science and

philosophy as the other, and neither warrants that its doctrine be taught to the exclusion of the other.

This paper is directed to college students and adults who may have only a cursory understanding of the


2/13


3/13

Carey-Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

(3)

armament, color, bio-chemistry, and behavior among the descendants.4

These opening paragraphs of theNational Geographic article contain a number of fundamental problems

in the way assertions are made. The problems fall into a category of critical thinking called "logical fallacies,"

which are errors in logic or reasoning. Let me point out a few of these from the article.

First, the author, David Quammen, confuses observable science with theoretical science. He compares

the "theory" of evolution with the theory of orbital mechanics regarding how the earth orbits the sun, or the

theory of electricity, which can be directly observed, measured, and repeatedthree fundamental requirements

of any scientific process. Evolution, in the sense of the word given in the article and used by scientists in

general, is nota theory in the same way as the theories we hold about the earth's orbit around the sun or how

electricity is produced. It does not even fall into the same category. Thus, any attempt to force a comparison is

nothing short of intellectual dishonesty. Quammen states that each theory, including evolution, has been tested

by observation and experiment as to be accepted as fact. The questions to ask, though, are how does he define

evolution, and which aspects of evolutionary theory have been tested by observation and repeated experiments

to confirm the theory? I'll address those questions in a moment.

Second, Quammen commits a common fallacy used by those who are unable to refute the merits of their

opponent's position, and who instead launch into an attack on their opponent's character. They commit character

assassination of their opponent instead of addressing the argument. This fallacy is called an ad hominem

argument, or "argument against the man." You can see it in the following statement the author makes, which I

quote:

Many fundamentalist Christians and ultra-orthodox Jews take alarm at the thought that human

descent from earlier primates contradicts a strict reading of the Book of Genesis. Their discomfort

is paralleled by Islamic creationists [who] call the theory of evolution 'nothing but a deception

imposed on us by the dominators of the world system.'5

Rather than address directly the objections that Christians make against the so-called theory of evolution,

Quammen attempts a character assassination of fundamentalist Christians by comparing them to "Islamic

creationistswho see evolution as a deception imposed by the dominators of the world system." Essentially,

what he has done is to state, "I do not care what kind of objections Christians raise against evolution or how

valid those objections may be. The objections are irrelevant because Islamic fundamentalists raise the same

4 Ibid.5 Ibid., 6.


4/13


5/13


(5)

is there any evidence to suggest such a massive change between species has ever occurred.8 Macroevolution is a

philosophical point of view, or a faith-based belief system if you want to call it that, which says, "this is what

we believe happened, although we cannot prove it." It is a belief system based on a philosophical point of view

called naturalism. Naturalism is a worldview that assumes that nature is a permanently closed system of

material causes and effects that can never be influenced by anything outside of itself.9 Therefore, everything

that happens or appears to have happened must be explained solely by naturalistic means. Naturalism

eliminates, up front, the possibility of the existence or intervention of a supernatural being or creator and is thus

as much a religious viewpoint as creationism. Because naturalism dismisses the possibility of the existence of a

divine creatora priori, naturalists have difficulty with the evidence of design that exists in the natural world.

They attempt to explain away the apparent design of the world as "merely appearing to be designed." Their

naturalistic belief forbids them to even consider that things appear to be designed because they are designed.

They have to explain away the discrepancy between the available evidence and their own belief system.

The point of making the distinction is this: When Christians and other adherents of ID theory are accused

of ignoring hard scientific evidence because they deny the theory of evolution, they should clarify exactly

which definition of evolution is under discussion. They must not allow their opponent to equivocate on the

definition of evolution, because it is almost a certainty he will try to do so, just like the author of the National

Geographic article does. I know of no believer who wants to be accused of being willfully ignorant of science

in the face of overwhelming evidence. And with regard specifically to evolution, I am unaware of anyone who

denies the existence of microevolution. One would be foolish to try and deny it, since the evidence is

overwhelming. On the other hand, one would be well within reason to object to and deny macroevolution

without the fear of being labeled anti-science, because macroevolution is not science at all, but a philosophical,

naturalistic explanation of what scientists thinkhappenedwhat Phillip Johnson calls speculative

philosophy.10 We must not allow our evolutionist friend confuse the two.

DARWINIAN EVOLUTION EXAMINED

Now, let me offer a critique of just a few of the many deficiencies of Darwinian theory. In order to

8 Dembski, Uncommon Dissent, xxii.9 Phillip E. Johnson,Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law, & Education (Downers Grove,

IL: Intervarsity Press, 1995), 38.10 Phillip E. Johnson, Evolution as Dogma in Dembski: Uncommon Dissent, 37.


6/13


(6)

define my terms, when I use the term "evolution" in the following comments, I mean macroevolution rather

than microevolution.

One compelling argument against evolution and for a creation model of life is called the Teleological

Argument or the "Argument from Design." The argument goes something like this:

1.Anything that exhibits properties of design must have had a designer.2.All of creation exhibits properties of design.3.Therefore, all of creation must have a designer.

The common analogy used for the argument from design is the watch, offered by William Paley (1743-

1805). The analogy goes something like this: "Suppose you take a stroll through the woods, and upon looking

down you see a watch on the trail. You pick it up and examine it. You observe that it has springs, gears, a dial

with information on it, pointing devices, and the like. The watch appears to have been intentionally designed,

because it could not have self-formed with such intricate detail. You surmise, therefore, that the watch had a

designer." Of course, you would be correct.

The argument from design has been around a long time, and evolutionists have been grappling with this

argument unsuccessfully. In fact, one evolutionist by the name of Richard Dawkins wrote a book called The

Blind Watchmaker in an attempt to rebut Paley's watch analogy. In the book he argues that, although the cosmos

"appears" to have been designed, the designer was nothing more than the unguided, random nature of chance

occurrences over billions of years; i.e., The Blind Watchmaker. One of the passages often quoted from his book

is: "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a

purpose"11 (emphasis mine). Dawkins states that the evidence of design in the universe cannot be ignored, but

then due to his anti-supernatural bias, discounts the fact that design by its very nature implies a "designer."

Dawkins, however, seems to be part of a fading minority among scientists who continue to try and use

the "Blind Watchmaker" analogy. As astronomers learn more about the nature of our earth, its relation to the

other planets in our solar system and our moon, and the nature of our solar system as it is positioned within the

Milky Way galaxy, these astronomers are beginning to understand that even the universe has the appearance of

11 Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker(New York: Norton, 1987), 1.


7/13


(7)

having been designed to operate within very tight limits which are conducive to sustaining life on planet Earth. 12

Robert Jastrow, an astronomer and self-proclaimed agnostic13, somewhat kicked off the "design of the

universe" concept several years back with a book called God and The Astronomers. Despite his agnosticism

concerning God, he cites many examples of the appearance of design in the makeup of the universe. Drawing a

logical conclusion from his detailed observations, he is left to conclude that an intelligence must have had a

hand in the origin of the universe. He concludes his book with an interesting quote which summarizes his

observations: "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad

dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself

over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." 14

Another concept useful for refuting evolution is the idea that some things found in nature appear to be

irreducibly complex. Michael Behe has been the chief proponent of the idea of irreducible complexity since the

introduction of his bookDarwins Black Box in 1996. Evolution cannot explain away irreducible complexity.

Let me try to define it for you.

Something is irreducibly complex if it is made of several independent components which function

together as a unit. None of the parts has any functional value apart from the rest of the parts. And if one part of

the whole is missing, the unit ceases to be a functional unit. An analogy is useful to help understand this

concept.

As an example of something that is irreducibly complex, Behe uses the simple, old-fashioned

mousetrap.15 The mouse trap is made of a handful of components: a flat block of wood to serve as a platform, a

spring, a hinged hammer which snaps closed, a holding bar which holds back the hinged hammer, and a bait

catch which secures the holding bar until wiggled by a mouse. This mousetrap is irreducibly complex. Every

individual component is required in order for it to perform the thing it was designed for: catching mice. If one

piece is missing, it does not simply become less able to catch mice, it stops working altogether. If four of the

five components of the trap were present, for example, and only the spring was missing, it would not catch 4/5

as many mice as it would if all components were present, it would catch no mice at all. We find examples far

12 Hugh Ross, Fine Tuning for Life on Earth [on-line article]; available at

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/200406_fine_tuning_for_life_on_earth.shtml ; accessed 20

October, 2005.13 Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (New York: Norton, 1978), 11.14 Ibid., 116.15 Michael Behe,Darwins Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: Free Press, 1996), 39-45.


8/13


(8)

more complex in nature of this sort of irreducible complexity.

One such example in nature is the bacterial flagellum. The flagellum is the little, whip-like tail attached

to a bacteria cell that propels it through its environment. I'm sure you've all seen examples in science books or

on the Nature Channel of a microscopic view of, say, pond water, with little things whipping around in the

water when viewed through the microscope. It turns out that the flagellum of a bacterium is a very complex

mechanism, constructed much like many modern day motors. If any of the numerous components of the

flagellum is missing, it ceases to work, meaning that the bacteria can no longer propel itself around in its

environment, and do whatever it needs to do to survive.

Scientists at the Nanotechnology Research Center in Japan have concluded that "nature" made a very

complex motor of about 30 nanometers diameter (a nanometer is one billionth of a meter) which self-assembles

using 25 different proteins.16 Their observations have concluded that this microscopic motor operates at greater

than eighty percent efficiencymore efficient than any man-made motor is capable of. These researchers have

also developed computer models in fascinating detail of how the flagellum is constructed. Of course, these

scientists, awed with the ability of "nature" to create such an efficient and complex machine fail to recognize

that nature had nothing to do with it. Such a complex design could only have come from a very Intelligent

Designer.

Evolutionists have a very difficult time trying to explain how many attempts "evolution" had to try

before it got the design right for the flagellum to work properly. In actuality, all the individual pieces had to be

present at the same time, for the very first bacteria. In reality, there was no opportunity for a "try the design,

modify it by natural selection, and try it again until you get it right" approach of Darwinian evolution. It had to

work right the first time.

Another example of irreducible complexity is the simple one-celled bacteria itself. Even the smallest or

least complex single cell entity is composed of multiple structures, all of which are required for the cell's

continued existence. Remove one of these systems and the cell ceases to function. Without getting into specific

detail here (read any first year biology textbook for the details), there are subsystems within any cell that

perform the following functions:

16 Keiichi Namba, Revealing the Mystery of the Bacterial FlagellumA self-assembling nanomachine with fine switching

capability, [on-line article], available at: http://www.nanonet.go.jp/english/mailmag/2004/011a.html , accessed 20 October,

2005.


9/13


10/13


(10)

create a protein. Instead, another substance, messenger RNA, must "read" the instruction set on the DNA. The

sequence (simplified) works like this: The RNA "reads" the instruction from the DNA, and based on

combination of the instruction, the RNA retrieves an amino acid to form the first link of the polypeptide. This

process is repeated-DNA, RNA, amino acid, until the protein strand is complete.20

The point is this: both DNA and RNA are necessary to create and form a single strand of the simplest

protein, which is foundational to living organisms. So here we have the classic "chicken and the egg" dilemma

for the evolutionist. Which came first in the evolutionary process: DNA or RNA? Answer: neither did; they

both had to exist simultaneously in order for any living organism to create the proteins essential to life, proteins

which composed that first living cell, but also were necessary for that first cell to carry out the essential

functions that insure its survivability.

It is quite noteworthy that long-time atheist and proponent of evolution, Antony Flew, recently admitted

that the evidence for Intelligent Design, including the complexity of DNA, convinced him to admit that

evolution is a bankrupt worldview and that the evidence overwhelmingly points to an Intelligent Designer. 21

CAN ID BE TAUGHT AS SCIENCE?

Scientists raise the objection that ID is not science but rather philosophy and therefore should not be

taught in a science classroom. But is this the case? What constitutes science? What are the principles used in the

scientific discovery process, and does ID follow these principles? I alluded to this point earlier, but let us take a

closer look at the principles behind ID.

Science is a very broad term. Within the field of science are many specialized disciplines. Two

disciplines relevant to this discussion are the empirical scientist and the forensic scientist. Empirical scientists

study present phenomena and arrive at an understanding of how things work through direct observation and

repeatable testing to arrive at a conclusion. Empirical scientists focus on present regularities, phenomena which

occur regularly and thus can be directly observed.

Forensic scientists, on the other hand, study unrepeatable singularities, events that are one-time

occurrences. Since singularities are, by definition, impossible to recreate, forensic scientists, in forming a

conclusion regarding the cause behind a singular event, cannot use the same methods that empirical scientists

20 Campbell, Mitchell, and Reese, 179-181.21 Gary Habermas, My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: An Exclusive Interview with Antony Flew,Philosophia

Christi 6 (2004), 197.


11/13


(11)

use. Instead, forensic scientists use something called the principle of uniformity to form their conclusions.

The principle of uniformity holds that causes in the past can be applied with the same criteria as causes we

observe today. As an example of this principle, Geisler and Turek contrast two geological formations: the Grand

Canyon and Mount Rushmore.

We know through observation today that running water and the process of erosion can change a geologic

plain into a canyon over time. Though nobody was around to directly observe the creation of the Grand Canyon

in this way, we can infer that it was created by the process of erosion in the past because we observe today what

erosion is capable of doing. In a similar vein, it is unlikely that the natural process of erosion can account for the

faces carved into the side of Mount Rushmore. Since we observe today that only an intelligent cause can create

a highly detailed sculpture with specificity such that we can recognize a design, so must we conclude that the

faces of Mount Rushmore were caused by an intelligent agent, though it is likely that none of us was there to

observe it directly.22

A forensic scientist, therefore, can make observations regarding the evidence of design found in nature,

design that even the most vocal advocate of evolution is forced to admit exists, and draw a scientific conclusion

about the source of that design by using the principle of uniformity. This is every bit as scientific as the forensic

criminal investigator who makes observations about a past singularity, such as a murder, and arrives at a

conclusion as to how, when, and why the murder occurred, even though he did not observe the murder directly.

Evolutionists attempt to apply the principle of uniformity to evolutionary theory by suggesting that since

we can directly observe small changes in a species today which allow it to adapt to its environment, we can then

infer that successive small changes in the past led to significant changes over time which resulted in new

species. This is an improper application of the principle, because the evolutionary development of a new species

today through successive, incremental changes has not been observed directly. Hence, the principle of

uniformity does not apply to macroevolution. Therefore, macroevolution is not based on scientific principles.

James Barham makes this point by noting, the real problem with the evolution debate is not empirical

Darwinism [microevolution]. Rather, it is a sort of theory creep in which a bold but circumscribed scientific

claim becomes conflated with a much more sweeping philosophical claim. The philosophical claim is then

22 Geisler and Turek, 117-118.


12/13


(12)

presented as though it were a confirmed scientific fact.23 The end result is that scientists engaging in such

sleight-of-hand tactics perpetrate a fraud on the public by draping their profoundly speculative philosophy with

the mantle of scientific authority.24

In light of the foregoing, the issue to be decided is whether ID should be taught alongside evolution as an

alternative scientific theory of origins, or whether teaching ID would constitute the establishment of religion as

opponents of ID maintain. Francis Beckwith makes a compelling case that ID mustbe taught in schools.

Beckwith notes that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1929 case ofEpperson v. Arkansas that

government must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practiceand it may not aid, foster, or

promote one religion or religious theory against another The First Amendment mandates governmental

neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion. 25 It is this very call to

neutrality, as Beckwith notes, that may turn out to be the strongest argument for allowing or even requiring ID

to be taught in public schools.26

School administrators cannot at the same time allow the teaching of evolution and forbid any discussion

of Intelligent Design, because to do so is to engage in viewpoint discrimination. As Beckwith notes, ID is a

point of view based on philosophical and empirical arguments which provide[s] answers to the same

questions for which the evolutionary paradigm is said to provide answers.27 Thus, school districts are in danger

of running afoul of Supreme Court case law by requiring the teaching of evolution while forbidding the

teaching of ID, because ID and naturalistic evolution are nottwo different subjects (the first religion, the

second science) but two different answers about the same subject.28

Furthermore, opponents of ID, who insist that to teach ID would violate the establishment clause of the

First Amendment, fail to realize that the courts have defined secularism as a religion. For instance, Beckwith

notes that in one court case the court commented that The State may not establish a religion of secularism

thus preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.29 Consequently, if school

23 James Barham, Why I Am Not a Darwinist in Dembski, Uncommon Dissent, 178.24 Ibid.25 Francis J. Beckwith,Law, Darwinism, and Public Education: The Establishment Clause and the Challenge of Intelligent

Design (Lanham, MY: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003), 12-13.26 Ibid.27 Ibid., 149.28 Ibid. (emphasis in the original)29 Ibid., (endnote 35).


13/13


(13)

districts elect to continue teaching evolution exclusively, they are, according to the Courts definition, engaging

in the establishment of a religion. Beckwith summarizes this argument by noting that if a point of view is

religious because its plausibility lends support to a religion or a religious point of view, then we would have to

conclude that naturalistic evolution is as much a religion as ID, for it lends support to some non-theistic and

anti-religious perspectives recognized as religions by the Court.30

To summarize, I have shown that some of the most common arguments used in the popular culture

against those who hold to a theistic worldview and allow for an intelligent cause are either fallacious or based

on false suppositions. Next, I discussed some of the common arguments for evidence being advocated today by

ID proponents. I believe I succeeded in showing that the methods employed by proponents of ID are every bit

as scientific as those employed in other areas of science. I concluded by noting that since ID and evolution are

both based on a mixture of scientific principles and philosophical assumptions, neither can be taught to the

exclusion of the other without engaging in viewpoint discrimination, something the courts have continually

ruled against.

It is my hope that those on both sides of this issue will recognize that the opposition has something of

value to bring to bear on the discussion, that all points of view need to be heard, and that only when all the

relevant data is presented can our children make a decision from a fully informed position regarding their

understanding of the origins of life.

30 Ibid., 149.

Evolution and ID-Can They Coexist in the Classroom

Documents

Transcript of Evolution and ID-Can They Coexist in the Classroom