Teaching science, not 'creation science'

'Intelligent design' merely religion in disguise

By Maria Salva
Post Comment

In the past few years, we all have seen ideas and policies formulated as though they began with a conclusion, with justifications made secondarily and sound logic set aside. The results haven't been positive. In the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, evidence was "fixed" around the predetermined policy, while it's now apparent the decision was irrational, creating only additional chaos and violence. Similarly, the powerful energy industry decided in advance that global climate change is a dubious speculation when in reality it is a well-established scientific agreement. Consequently, United States anti-emissions policies are among the weakest in the developed world, focusing more on retaining a status quo than making necessary changes for the sake of the planet.

In these cases, it's easy to see how logically unsound processes resulted in inaccurate and ultimately harmful ideas and policies. If a more rational analysis had been utilized, something much closer to the truth could have been found.

This is also true with respect to the origin of life. Granted, an incorrect answer to this question probably will not cause the sort of atrocities seen in the aforementioned cases, but to disregard reason in one area can push us into mentalities that nourish irrationality in others. Therefore, we must continue to use logical, naturalistic examinations -- that is, the scientific method -- to understand the world. True?

Possibly not, according to most of my AP Biology class. In November, we produced a collaborative project on the origin of life: a large bulletin board in the science hallway illustrating some of the major theories. As time passed, some suggested including intelligent design, the new and still fully unscientific face for creationism, as a scientific "theory." After a few days, it seemed imminent that about half of the board would be dedicated to creationism, rather than additional science. Throughout this process, I was the only active opponent to the addition of intelligent design or creationism. It seems that if not for time limits, creationism probably would have been included as its own "theory," made to appear equally valid as the findings from the scientific method.

I have always been troubled by the cases around the nation of attempts to include intelligent design in biology classes as an "alternative" to the overwhelming scientific consensus of evolution. Historically, intelligent design descends directly from 1980s campaigns to include "creation science" in biology curricula. When the Supreme Court found the inclusion of creation science as biology unconstitutional under the establishment of religion clause, creationist textbooks such as that to which Dover, Pa., students were directed in 2005, "Of Pandas and People," changed the wording to "intelligent design." With this label, the language is made slightly more ambiguous, keeping a universal "designer" unidentified, rather than specifying a particular deity. The specification is unnecessary, after all, when the religious implication of the language remains so blatant. We see here, the conclusion is already established: that only a supernatural being created life, and any scientific data that might point in another direction for the origin and development of life is irrelevant. The movement seeks to fix information and opinion to accommodate the preemptive conclusion.

Time has not been wasted. In 1999, the Discovery Institute, the effective headquarters for the movement, produced the infamous Wedge Document, detailing a five- and 20-year plan to make intelligent design the dominant "theory" within society for the origin of life and species. The text of the document does not make scientific propositions, but a series of public relations goals to gain acceptability and popularity for their predetermined ideas. It entails nothing short of the overthrow of scientific naturalism, the centuries-old set of ground rules for experimentation and proof, in order to implement religious opinions in its place. Because positions in support of intelligent design begin with the conclusion already decided, they include misinterpretations of scientific laws and data to suit their plan. Fossil evidence is misread; the "closed system" condition for the laws of thermodynamics goes ignored.

Their ideas have been refuted by the scientific community. Indeed, the intelligent design movement has never published in a peer-reviewed journal. A search for "intelligent design" at the journal Nature produces news coverage of legal cases on its introduction into public education. At the National Academy of Sciences, the nation's most prestigious science organization, most search results are resources for teachers dealing with such situations while teaching evolution.

It's clear: Intelligent design is antithetical to science. Under no circumstance should be taught as an equivalent to the real science: Over 150 years of intellectual progress and fine-tuning of the theory of evolution, and the recent decades' promising findings concerning possible origins of life.

My experience working on the collaborative "origin of life" presentation has led me to suspect that the Wedge strategy has exerted some influence. Active opposition was minimal to creating a publicly visible presentation that, among the rest of the students in the school, would grant false intellectual validity to a propagandistic pseudoscience. It's quite troubling, but the AP group seemed to consider intelligent design an acceptable theory.

Instead of following the logical investigations into possible origins of life, creationism starts with its conclusion, justifying it later if need be, and disregarding logical refutations to these justifications. It is not science; it's an ignorance of the scientific method for proof and naturalism. If we cease to teach reasonable standards for determining truth, for questions in areas from science to foreign policy, what could become of our actions?

Salva is a senior at Susquehanna Valley High School.