Why?

Many people think that God should have His place. That He shouldn't be included in anything having to do with government. That He shouldn't be in schools or political arenas. I don't agree. I don't think that God in schools needs to be religious services forced on students, but I do think that a case should be made showing the evidence of His existence to students. I also think that being that the Bible is the oldest book in existence and is the only book throughout history that has consistently been burned and had threat of destruction (yet somehow there are still several original manuscripts in existence), that it should be treated as an amazing piece of literature. The other interesting thing about it as a book is that it was written over a span of 1500 years by several different authors, yet it is surprisingly consistent in its message. There is not another book like it. Discounting its literary value is tragic, yet it is done all the time because people say its is a religious book. Well...it is also a history book. A few years back, I wrote this paper for my English 102 class. It explains why I believe it is important for schools to teach intelligent design. See what you think...

Imagine coming home to find your favorite dog lying dead in your backyard, blood running down one side of his head from what appears to be a bullet wound. So, you report it to the police and after one glace the officer tells you, “Maam, it looks like your dog died of natural causes…we have nothing left to investigate.” How would you feel? Confused, let down, baffled by what looks like obvious negligence on the part of the local police department? Would you fight the officer and ask him to explain why he wouldn’t investigate further, when there was an obvious outside cause for the death of your best friend? That is where a lot of Americans are today: confused, let down, and baffled by scientist’s obvious refusal to look at the facts regarding our origin of life. They seem to have a one-sided approach to their research and anything that falls outside the realm of what “they” deem acceptable research is sidestepped or fallaciously scoffed at.
For many scientists, evolution is the be all and end all of biological science. They hold it closely and lash out at anyone who asks questions that might take away from the validity of their precious viewpoints. This isn’t to say that they are completely wrong, but it is to say that when theories are placed so high up on a pedestal it makes them very difficult to analyze against other theories. This has also made it difficult for students in our current school system to learn anything outside of this box of what is appropriate and what is not. It places the scientific academic standard up there on that same pedestal. So the question then is, “what can we do about it?” Well, if we were to teach a valid evolutionary curriculum, while also including intelligent design and other legitimate scientific theories, we would enable our students to fully understand the complete realm of biological science as it is known today.
Continuing to teach evolution in our school system is not a negative thing. There are, however, some changes that need to be made to the textbooks in order for them to hold up to current scientific evidence. For example, there is the theory that all human life was created in what is known as the “primordial soup,” which basically means that amino acids were able to be synthesized by passing an electric spark through methane gas and thus creating the proteins needed to create life (Geisler 63). Many evolutionists still force-feed us this as if it were true, but there has been absolutely no scientific evidence supporting it. In fact, in order for life to be created in this fashion, 2000 different enzymes made out of amino acids would have had to come together by chance to make up the 10 to 20 amino acids needed to make up the proteins needed to create life. The odds of this happening are 1 to the 40,000th power. In English, that is a 10 with 40,000 zero’s following it. In science, anything with odds of 1 to the 50th power or higher is impossible. At this point, we still don’t have life; we just have the proteins needed to make life (Geisler 64). If by some chance this did happen it would be similar to saying the earth forms the sand and elements needed to make glass and metal, which are used to make a wrist watch. So, over time, through random selection and chance, a watch was formed. We know this is not true and we can look at the watch and see that it was made by someone to perform a certain function. It would have never come together on its own and been able to work in the precise way that it does.
There is also a problem when we look at the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which basically says that the organization of something left alone will decrease over time, not increase. If two systems are placed together, the two will even out. A good example of this would be heat transfer. If you put a cup of water outside in the sun the water’s temperature will rise, but not become hotter than the air surrounding it. Additionally, if you pour cold water in a cup of hot water, the water will decrease in temperature, not increase. This basically means that in order for abiogenesis (the theory that all life formed from non-life) to occur, some outside system had to add something to the mix; because if left alone, life would not become more organized over time it would become less so (“Abiogenesis” 2). So, if this theory is to continue to be taught in schools it should be known to students that it is unproven.
However, lower levels of evolution have been proven through mutations and slight variations. Examples of this would be the change in beak structure of a bird, wing structure of a fly, or coloration variations in moths. These changes don’t affect the species as a whole, but do prove that genetic mutation is possible. Science has also found many fossils that suggest changes over time. There are fossil records of species that are no longer on earth that resemble species that are still here (Wieland 2). Science can speculate as to the relationship between the two based on the fossil evidence, but they cannot be absolutely certain. The fossil evidence is still compelling evidence for the theory of evolution. It does not, however, point to the original hypothesis that Charles Darwin had when he wrote Origin of the Species where he indicated that all creatures came from the same ancestors, but it does advocate for lower level evolutionary changes. These ideas should continue to be taught in schools because there is valid research and documented findings.
Intelligent design (ID) is also a valid theory that should be taught to our students. There are many theories inside the theory, but ultimately ID advocates believe that the complexity found in all living organisms is too great to have been caused by random selection and genetic drift. In addition, ID advocates believe that the origin of the universe and ultimately Earth had to have been caused by an outside agent or intelligence. In the past century, there has been a lot of light shed on this topic in the scientific community. In the 1920’s, William Hubble documented evidence that showed that while on its way to earth, light stretched, which pointed towards an expanding universe. Then in the 1960’s microwave background radiation was discovered, which set the Big Bang theory as the standard for the evolution of the universe and concluded that the universe had a beginning (Witt 3). It is important then to study what caused that beginning. Since we know that it would have been nearly impossible for it to happen as described by the Darwinian model of evolution, we must ask ourselves how the universe came to be? This question remains unanswered, but intelligent design is one very valid theory.
We can look at the different organisms that are here on earth to see if we can recognize intelligent design among them. One way to do this is to evaluate them between two theories of complexity, irreducible complexity and cumulative complexity. Irreducible complexity means that something is complex in that all of the elements that make it up are necessary in order for it to function. A good example of this would be a mousetrap. The hammer, spring, holding bar, catch, and platform are all needed in order for it to function. If one item is removed, it fails to perform the function it was designed to perform. Cumulative complexity means that something is complex, but any of the items that make it up could be removed and it would still function. A city would be a good example of this because if you continued to reduce its resources and people, it would still function as a community. So, if we test this theory with a simple organism such as a bacterial flagellum we would see that it contains many elements, including a whip-like motor with an acid-powered rotary engine, a stator, O-rings, bushings, and a drive shaft; included in this are 15 proteins, all of which are needed in order to function. Natural selection would only work in a cumulatively complex system, not an irreducibly complex one. Irreducibly complex systems indicate design (Dembski 8).
Still, some people believe that bringing intelligent design into the school system is just an attempt by Creationists to reintroduce religion. While it may be true that there are similarities between the two, one big difference is that creationism states that God created the heavens and the earth while intelligent design says that the earth was created, but we do not know by whom or what. Creationists are happy to embrace intelligent design because it doesn’t conflict with their beliefs, but it also doesn’t conflict with the beliefs of over 90% of the people in the United States. According to a general study in 1998, only 8.3% of Americans either don’t believe in a higher power, don’t know, or feel that there is no way to find out. Everyone else has some form of belief in something greater than they are (Utter 128). In a personal interview, Duane Cross, pastor of Hope Covenant Church put it this way, “it seems as if schools have jumped on the concept (intelligent design vs. evolution) only recently, but it is building. The more scientists discredit evolution, the more embolden Christian educators become. The doubts (evolution) and the belief (creationism) have always been there, but science itself is stirring the pot and is asking, ‘if not evolution, then what’ Christians are more than happy to raise their hands and say, ‘Teacher, I know the answer to that question.’”
Truthfully, the science of intelligent design is being completely overlooked because of the prejudices against Creationists. In part, this could be because there is generally a huge misunderstanding of what creationism really is. First off, “many people assume that Creationists are non-thinkers and anti-intellectual. Part of this is their fault for not engaging intellectually, but part is the assumption on the other side that they function only on blind faith” (Cross). The media exacerbates this misunderstanding because most of them still think that Creationists all believe in the basic 6000-year-old world with a 6-day creation. While some Creationists do hold this belief, it is far from the majority. There are many that don’t dispute scientist’s claims of an older Earth. In the English Standard Version of Genesis, God created the heavens and the earth all within the six days as stated by many, but then it goes on to say in Genesis 2:4, “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” (ESV). As you can see, it uses the same word “day” in both the single days used for creation and the plural form encompassing the total time when everything was created. Also, in this section of the Bible, God created days one through three before He even created the sun, moon, or stars. So our day would not have been created yet and thus the meaning of “day” is completely up to interpretation. Day one could have been the 24-hour period that we usually think a day to mean or it could have been meant as a span of time. This flexibility in Genesis allows for evolution. The part of the theory that is really in question and has continued to stump evolutionists is the part that says you cannot create life from non-life (Cross). So the controversy between Creationists and Evolutionists strictly lies in how we came to be.
Intelligent design says that the earth was created by something or someone more intelligent than we are. It doesn’t discount genetic drift or species mutations offered by evolution, but it does take into account the appearance of design that is apparent in scientific research. Many scientists admit to the appearance of design and even say that everything is too complex to have come into being otherwise. According to Richard Dawkins, author of The Blind Watchmaker, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose” (Dembski 1). Since Evolutionists cannot prove the “primordial soup” theory and Creationists cannot prove the "6000 year-old earth" theory, maybe we can look at where the two meet.
However, many people contend that intelligent design is a new development and thus has not had enough scientific study to be valid. This is not a true statement though. The idea of intelligent design actually goes back to Socrates and Plato, and the term “intelligent design” as an alternative to blind evolution was used as early as 1897. At that time, Oxford scholar F.C.S Schiller wrote an essay in which he stated, “It will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of evolution be guided by intelligent design” (Witt 1). So, the debate between design and evolution actually started back then. In the past, science was always about finding truth around design. When Darwin first introduced his theories of evolution, his biggest adversaries were the official scientific establishment, while many of his supporters were clergymen (Midgely 23).
By teaching both evolution and intelligent design in schools we could promote scholarship without compromising people’s belief systems, or lack there of. As stated before, for the most part, people believe in something greater then themselves. A survey done by CBS in November of 2004 showed that 65% of all Americans favor the teaching of creation along with evolution (CBS 1). While intelligent design differs from creation in the sense that it does not ascribe the “who” of creation, it is clear that American’s want more information, not less. This could be accomplished by introducing additional text into the classrooms and allowing teachers to discuss differing theories around the issue. By allowing students and teachers to discuss the theories and controversies openly, we would enable them to actively learn and understand the whole scope of the issue. Students would be able to view it from all perspectives instead of the prescribed one. The only costs involved in the change would be in editing textbooks to include more information. Such a small cost would definitely be worth it since it would promote open discussion and active learning in our science classes. It would also require students to look at the theories themselves and make decisions based on the evidence presented.
Intelligent design seeks to explain a part of science that evolution has failed in explaining. That’s it. That’s where design ends. It explains the beginning. The thousands, millions, or billions of years that have passed since then are completely up to evolution to sort out. We can look at evolution and see what doesn’t make since, but we can also see what does. We can’t discount hundreds of years of scientific research on either side. As stated earlier, there are many things that science has unsuccessfully tried to prove with regards to evolution. Until these theories have some good evidence to support them, intelligent design is the most probable answer for the origin of species. Evolution and other scientific theories can then explain the remaining elements by filling in the gaps of history with documented evidence found thus far. This would give students a fuller understanding of science, life on this planet, and the history of earth, while also showing them that it is all still a learning process. Scientists have spent many years studying species, making claims, reevaluating hypotheses, and then making new claims. The age of the earth is continually changing. One scientist will claim to have found something that proves the earth is billions of years older than originally thought and then another will review that data and refute it. So, through these many years, one of the biggest truths discovered is how very little we all know. Science is ever changing, always learning, just as we are. A truth that is discovered today will be discarded tomorrow. Once we can get past the religious concepts of evolution and the prejudices against the ideas of intelligent design, our students can begin to really learn what science is about, the search for truth. The two adversaries, intelligent design and evolution, can co-exist and even help each other to discover new scientific truths in the future.


“Abiogenesis.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 11 Apr 2006, 20:03 UTC. 25 Apr. 2006 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abiogenesis&oldid=48003875>.
Cross, Duane. Email interview. 22 Mar. 2006
Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London: Penguin Classics, 1985.
Demski, William A."Science and Design.” 1998. First Things 86. 02 Feb. 2006
Geisler, Normal, and Ravi Zacharias. Who Made God? And Answers to Over 100 Other Tough Questions of Faith. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL: Good News Publishers. 03 Feb. 2006 <http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible>
Midgley, Mary. Evolution as a Religion: Strange Hopes and Stranger Fears (Revised Edition). Florence, KY, USA: Routledge, 2002. eLibrary. 1 February 2006 . Path: Basic Search; Title.
Utter, Glenn H. and John W. Storey. The Religious Right: A Reference Handbook. 2nd ed. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 2001. (BR526.U88 2001)
Wieland, Carl. “Book Review: The Beak of the Finch.” Answers in Genesis. 1995. 24 Apr. 2006 .
Witt, Jonathan Ph.D. “The Origin of Intelligent Design.” Discovery Institute. 2006. 03 Feb. 2006 < command="view&id="3207">
“Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution.” CBS News 22 Nov. 2004, CBS News Text. 24 Apr. 2006 .