“Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools.” (Gov. Sarah Palin on teaching evolution and alternative theories)

THE SCIENCE OF DESIGN

Over 20 years ago the Supreme Court ruled (Edwards v. Aguillard) that teaching creation science in public schools was an unconstitutional breach of church-state separation. Yet, in that same decision, the Court determined 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.”

Since then, school boards in seven states (Alabama, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas) have added critiques of evolutionary theory in their science curricula.

One of those critiques is “intelligent design” (ID), a theory of human origins that attempts to determine, scientifically, whether the apparent design observed in nature is the product of intelligence. Unlike creationism, ID is not based on sectarian beliefs or sacred texts, but on established methods of historical science.

By studying the features of intelligently designed objects—language, computer codes, machinery, and human artifacts—ID theorists predict what natural systems should look like, if produced by intelligent agents. ID is a systematic method of theory and observation that does not plead immunity from critique based on faith and tradition, but remains open to empirical falsification. Thus, ID is a scientific, not religious, enterprise.

Nevertheless, opponents persistently frame ID as “creationism”—as in this statement from the National Academy of Sciences: “The ideas offered by intelligent design creationists are not the products of scientific reasoning” (emphasis added).

It’s a clever tactic. By linking ID to creationism, the Academy raises the constitutionality issue, conjures images of “flat-earth” science, all the while avoiding the hard work of addressing ID’s scientific merits. It was the successful strategy behind the Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005) decision, where Judge John E. Jones III ruled: “Intelligent Design is not science, and . . . cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious antecedents” (emphasis added).

The Dover decision was hailed by many as a victory for education. But was it?

EDUCATION GOALS

Professor Massimo Pigliucci considers that an important goal of education is to give students “the necessary tools to engage in critical thinking”; except, that is, when it comes to critical thinking about evolutionary theory.

You see, Pigliucci believes that Darwinian evolution is an unassailable fact, and “creationism”—a term he uses for any non-materialistic theory—is “superstitious nonsense” undeserving a serious discussion. “Just one look at creationist claims,” he breezes, is it all it would take to convince students that “they don't need to be further entertained.”

Well, given that for nearly 30 years, the percentage of Americans who believe in some form of intelligent creation has held steady at around 80 percent, Mr. Pigliucci should be one of the staunchest advocates of “teaching the controversy” (namely, critiquing the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinism and alternate theories). How better to lead those benighted souls out of the fog of superstition?

But Pigliucci is smarter than he lets on. He realizes that public skepticism is not due to ignorance. How could it be? Darwinian theory has been a part of public education for nigh on a century. No, the folks accept intelligent causation because it is the default position based on common sense and what everyone—scientists and laypersons, alike—know about functional complexity: it only comes from intelligence.

But by banging the “intelligent design is creationism in a cheap tuxedo” drum, opponents shut down reasoned critique, elevating indoctrination over education and science orthodoxy over critical thinking. Their attack on academic freedom has drawn fire from some surprising critics—none more so than Thomas Nagel, philosopher, law professor, and atheist.

AN UNEXPECTED ALLY

In the journal Philosophy and Public Affairs, Nagel writes,

“The political urge to defend science education against the threats of religious orthodoxy, understandable though it is, has resulted in a counterorthodoxy, supported by bad arguments, and a tendency to overstate the legitimate scientific claims of evolutionary theory.”

Indeed. In Darwinian groupthink, there's nothing under the sun that can't be accounted for as a product of evolution. The most recent case-in-point is, ironically, superstition, defined by the two scientists who made the “discovery” as the “tendency to falsely link cause to effect.”

If, like me, you're wondering how superstition is linked to evolution, the New Scientist explains: “As long as the cost of believing a superstition is less than the cost of missing a real association, superstitious beliefs will be favoured [in the natural selection scheme of things].”

In the same article, evolutionary biologist Wolfgang Forstmeier, who sounds more like Ben Stein than Richard Dawkins, suggests that the science behind this explanation is itself a “dogmatic form of superstition.” He accuses scientists of being caught between superstition (accepting false conclusions) and ignorance (about evidence that contradicts their long-held ideas). I doubt that he has discussed these views with Professor Pigliucci.

Dr. Forstmeier has it right. In the public debate, false and overreaching claims of evolution (superstition) are asserted as “science,” while intelligent causation is snubbed (ignorance) as “not science.” Here, Thomas Nagel, who is no friend of ID, waves the red flag.

Nagel acknowledges that ID, like Darwinian evolution, attempts to explain something that “cannot be directly observed, but must be inferred from currently available data.” But unlike creationism, ID “does not seem to depend on massive distortion of the evidence and hopeless incoherencies in its interpretation. Nor does it depend, like biblical literalism, on the assumption that the truth of ID is immune to empirical evidence to the contrary.”

That’s right. ID theory only depends on established methods of design detection, and on a designer whose existence is not ruled inadmissible a priori.

Thus, while ID may be “bad” science, it is certainly not—despite the opinion of Judge John E. Jones—”not science.” If methods of design detection are considered “scientific” when applied to physical systems, it is arbitrary (read: willfully ignorant) to reject those same methods as “unscientific” when biological systems are involved.

THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE

Nagel argues that to reject ID out of hand, evolutionists would have to robustly and comprehensively account for the progression of life, all the way back to its chemical, even physical origins. Since “nothing close to this has been done,” the only way to refuse ID a hearing is to rule the existence of a designer impossible, which, like the counter proposition, is based on a religious assumption. Thus, asks Nagel:

“Public schools in the United States may not teach atheism or deism any more than they may teach Christianity, so how can it be all right to teach scientific theories whose empirical confirmation depends on the assumption of one range of these views while it is impermissible to discuss the implications of alternative views on the same question?”

Going on to defend the constitutionality of both theories, Nagel writes:

“It would have to be argued that the assumption that divine intervention is impossible, or too improbable to be considered, is on a par with the assumption that the literal truth of the Bible is not immune to empirical counterevidence, and that just as the latter is a constitutionally permissible presupposition of the teaching of science, so is the former.”

Beyond constitutionality is the question of what best serves the interests of educating students.

REAL EDUCATION
Students don't need to know what to think; they need to know how to think. They need to know how to collect, select, and critically examine evidence. They need to be skilled in the principles of rational argument, rhetorical discourse, and good listening. Only that way can they know what they believe, why they believe it, and how to articulate their beliefs in the ongoing conversation.

To develop a generation of good thinkers, education cannot be reduced to rote memorization and indoctrination. It must include the cultivation of critical thinking skills—skills that will enable students to sift fact from fiction, truth from “truthiness,” and straight talk from spin.

Real education requires an atmosphere of academic freedom in which students and teachers can openly and honestly discuss viewpoints opposed to reigning paradigms and expert consensus, in realization that mankind’s greatest breakthroughs came through individuals who questioned the status quo.

In such an environment, “teaching the controversy” is not a subterfuge for religious indoctrination, but an objective appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of Darwin’s theory, as well as those associated with alternative explanations. Charles Darwin once wrote: “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.”

In that spirit, “teaching the controversy” is aimed at the fair and balanced presentation of all sides of the origins debate, allowing the evidence to speak for itself. Our young people deserve no less.