Why Do Intelligent Design Exist

“People cited violation of the First Amendment when a New Jersey school teacher asserted that evolution and the Big Bang are not scientific and that Noah’s ark carried dinosaurs. This case is not about the need to separate church and state: it’s about the need to separate ignorant, scientifically illiterate people from the ranks of teachers.” (deGrasse Tyson) Science is based on observations of the natural world, not on the supernatural occurrences that Intelligent Design followers believe. Evolution has been studied and proven by many different sciences including geology, paleontology, genetics, and biology. Scientists in these fields have studied and proven the existence of evolution and its effects on living organisms. Intelligent Design
followers have the right to follow their religious beliefs, but these beliefs have no place in the science curriculum. They are rooted in the supernatural not the scientific. The lack of scientific evidence of the Intelligent Design Theory and the fact that it cannot be scientifically tested are sound reasons not teach it in science class. The Theory of Evolution is supported by overwhelming conclusive scientific evidence. (Lloyd) Geologists have studied the Earth’s crust and have factually proven that the Earth is billions of years old. Paleontologists have discovered fossils that have shown patterns of changes consistent with evolution. The fossil record proves that the plants and animals of today were preceded by earlier more primitive ones. Biologists have shown that all organisms on Earth are composed of the same building blocks. Biologists and geneticists have proven that genes carry different biological and behavioral traits and that these genes are passed from parent to offspring. The case of evolution is strengthened by the evidence that all of these sciences have produced. Because of this scientific evidence, scientists are confident in teaching evolution in schools. Because evolution is fundamental to understanding both living and extinct organisms, it should be taught in science classes. Intelligent Design is religion and not science. Linus Pauling, a Nobel Prize winning scientist, has described science as the “search for truth”. Scientists do this by constantly testing their theories and making changes according to the results. Intelligent Design does not follow the same ideals. In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Creationism, a belief that God created life and the universe, is a religious tenet and cannot be taught in public schools. Religious groups started using the Intelligent Design Theory to try to get around the Supreme Court decision. Supporters of Intelligent Design argue that the universe and life was designed by divine intervention and that the creator continues to be involved. By omitting who the divine designer is, they believe it is no longer a religious tenet and can be taught alongside evolution as an alternate theory. Intelligent Design supporters argue that evolution is just a theory because no one had actually witnessed it happen. (Ruse) Whereas there is overwhelming conclusive evidence that supports evolution, there is no evidence to support Intelligent Design. Intelligent design is based on faith, not facts. (Ruse) There is no way to prove the existence of a supernatural creator. Since the beginning of scientific study, methodological naturalism has been the stance of the sciences.
(Lloyd) Scientists explain the world using only natural causes and theories, not supernatural ones. They assume all causes can be methodically measured, quantified, and studied. Since Scientists cannot explain or test explanations about the supernatural, they would be unable to prove or disprove a hypothesis that focused on a supernatural cause. This is the problem that Intelligent Design supporters face. There is no known way to prove that the supernatural exists. By including the supernatural in scientific study, it would be impossible to present the findings as factual. Experimentation, analysis, and evidence based results are procedures that clearly separate science from other types of knowing. Any type of knowing that uses the supernatural, such as Intelligent Design, does not belong in a science
class. Supporters of Intelligent Design argue that life at the molecular level was too involved to have arisen on its own. There had to be a divine intervention and that the creator continues to be involved in life. (Bathija) These supporters believe that this theory should be taught in conjunction with evolution in science class. They believe that evolution is not the whole story. While there is no debate between scientists that evolution occurred, many biologists question details of evolution. (Meyer) Many biologists question aspects of evolutionary theory because much of the evidence for evolutionary theory no longer hold up. German biologist Ernst Haeckel’s famous embryo drawings were thought to show that all vertebrates share a common ancestry. But biologists now know that these diagrams are inaccurate. Darwin’s theory states that all living things evolved slowly from a common ancestor. But fossil records show the geologically sudden appearance of new animal forms in the Cambrian period. Biologists know about these problems. (Meyer). Scientific knowledge will always be subject to change and revision as new evidence comes to light. Students should learn how to analyze scientific study critically and not to just accept an assumed opinion. Scientific method is open to error and misinterpretation. Publicized failures of science have led to mistrust by the public. (Carter) The Intelligent Design movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that it undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution. This lack of scientific proof makes it improper to include it as a part of science education in schools. I do believe that science should be based on factual evidence and not on religious beliefs. Science and religion are at war as scientists support evolution and Christians believe in a divine beginning. (Ruse) The church adheres to Creationism because it is supported by the Bible. According to Genesis, God made the universe in six days and created Adam and Eve. God was also responsible for a great flood. Intelligent Design supporters believe that the universe and life were designed by divine intervention and that the creator continues to be involved. Supporters often imply that evolution destroys the idea of God and takes away life’s meaning and worth. If there is no God there is no moral standard. Christians believe that evolution is atheistic. Francis Collins, a prominent scientist and Christian, believes that there is a middle ground. (Bethune) God was responsible for the creation of life and the universe and that he has allowed evolution to progress naturally. This theory may appeal to people from both sides that are religious but also believe in scientific evidence. Both groups believe that a divine creator was responsible for life and the universe. Scientists have concluded that the universe and life was created by the Big Bang Theory. Astronomers have combined models with observations to develop theories of how the universe came to be. The church supports this theory because it agrees with their theological position that time began at creation. However, there is disagreement over what the actual cause of the Big Bang was. The church believes that a divine creator was responsible while scientists, who rely on prediction and experiment, cannot give a definitive answer because of the impossibility of testing their theories. Does this mean that the divine creator idea may be true? Again, scientists keep their studies to the natural world, not the supernatural. To accept a supernatural cause would deter scientists from continuing the pursuit of the cause of the Big Bang Theory. Scientists continue to study the creation of the universe and how evolution has occurred. Science is not based on faith or religion. Whatever the personal beliefs a student, teacher, or school administrator may have, the teaching of scientific studies, such as evolution, astronomy, biology, or genetics should not be altered or constrained in response to other non-scientific studies. Intelligent Design should not be included in teaching evolution in science classes.
Science is based on observations of the natural world, not on the supernatural occurrences. Evolution has been studied and supported with scientific proof. Intelligent Design followers have the right to follow their religious beliefs, but these beliefs have no place in the science curriculum in schools. They are rooted in the supernatural not the scientific. The lack of scientific evidence of the Intelligent Design Theory and the fact that it cannot be scientifically tested are sound reasons not teach it in science class. Science is currently taught as simple facts. The student’s job is to learn and memorize them and repeat them back for their tests. While science class may teach students that the most accepted theory of the origin of life on Earth is the Theory of Evolution, students should learn that scientists are still analyzing and investigating evolution. Science education in schools should be taught the way science is actually performed, the way real scientists behave. All of the evidence for or against a scientific theory should be provided to students. They should not be asked to just memorize and repeat word for word everything they have been taught. They should be allowed to become scientist themselves. They should learn science by performing science. They need to examine and question all theories and make up their own minds. They need to develop strong thinking skills so that
they are more prepared for life. But the science that they learn should be supported by scientific evidence and not based on re