Point/Counterpoint: Intelligent Design

Teach it in School
By Mike Paquet
Manifest Staff Writer

In 2005 a law was passed in Kansas which stated that public schools had to teach intelligent design along side evolution.

Was this a good decision on Kansas’ part? Is intelligent design something that should be taught in our public schools? What I am going to discuss in this article; why intelligent design should be taught in United States public schools.

Why should intelligent design be taught along side evolution in the public schools? Because one could say that this belief is as much “science” as the belief of evolution. Why? Well, let’s step back, and first use what all scientists use to test their ideas: A process known as the scientific method.

Please allow me to give you a quick demonstration of how this method works. A person sees something strange that is occurring in his/her environment, documents the phenomena, and tests it to see if it occurs again. For example, one sees that there is a small hole in one’s back yard. One evaluates that it must be some kind of an animal burrow. One could also postulate that a small meteor struck your back yard, but, according to Occam’s Rule (or Razor), “the best hypothesis is often the most simple.”

Once the person’s idea has been tested and proven, they have the workings of a functional hypothesis (or guess as to why the event is happening). After much more testing, only then does the hypothesis move onto a theory. Later after generations of testing what once started as an idea becomes a scientific law.

Given this information that we have to work with, both of the “ideas” of origins that we are discussing here are nothing more than an educated guess. Why? Well, because they are not observable, testable, or repeatable.

From an intelligent design perspective, to observe an event of creation would be breaking all laws of physics, because matter cannot be created or destroyed, and the laws as we now know them cannot be rewritten.

From an evolutionary perspective, to observe chemical evolution taking place would be the same thing as observing spontaneous generation, which is something that Louis Pasteur disproved hundreds of years ago.

Why should intelligent design be taught in the public schools? Simply put, as long as evolution is taught, so should intelligent design.

Why? Because, as I have demonstrated above (using only the scientific method), evolution is as much an idea as intelligent design. This is the only evidence I can offer; both of these beliefs are just that – beliefs, and nothing more.

In conclusion, if intelligent design is not taught along side evolution, then the teaching of origins should be completely exempt from text books, because all ideas of origins are completely ideas, because they cannot be observed or tested.

More from Mike
Simply, according to the scientific method, both evolution and intelligent design are no more than ideas. Why? Because the first stage of the scientific method (hypothesis) requires that one’s observation or idea can be observable or testable. Are either of our two ideas observable or testable? No. Why? Well first, concerning intelligent design, the first law of thermodynamics states that, “matter cannot be created nor destroyed”, therefore this idea cannot be testable or observable, and if there was a creator who created our universe (some kind of superior being) then we could not observe the creation again, because it goes against our laws of physics that are currently in place.

What about evolution? Charles Darwin stated in “Origin of the Species” that natural selection can be seen in the variation of nature, correct? It is true that Darwin says this in his book, but Darwin also said, and I quote, “If it could be Demonstrated that there existed some kind of complex organ that could not have come about by slight successive modifications, my theory would absolutely brake down.” What does this mean? This means that if there existed something that could not have come about by a series of modifications, the “theory” of natural selection would collapse. This is one of the main arguments of intelligent Design; what is called irreducible complexity. Such an organ has been discovered, indeed, many have; the bacterial flagellum, the human eye, human ear, among many others. I will admit, if life was not at the degree of complexity that we see it as today, then, and only then could evolution by natural selection take place. Lastly, concerning natural selection, I would like to share with you one of my favorite quotes, “Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves to be the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our Data as so bad we never see the very process we profess to study.” What does this mean? I don’t have to spoon-feed you, but just to put this statement in the simplest of terms it means that paleontologists have paid a huge price to preserve Darwin’s idea of evolution by natural selection, and the information that they find is so bad, they never see the process (natural selection) they say that they study.

What about bio-chemical evolution; where our existence began? Think with me for a moment about our beginnings on this planet according to evolution (chemical evolution). According to Human Biology (by Daniel D. Chiras fifth edition) the process of chemical evolution “probably began about 4 billion years ago-or 500-600 million years after the Earth formed.” Step back with me for a moment and think about how long one billion years is. One billion years is a LONG time (please remember this throughout the paragraph). Now, if chemical evolution takes place, that means we have the elements that are required to make life. So, if chemical evolution started how did we get life? The answer: through random chance processes of different chemicals (specifically amino acids) coming together and making protein chains, which in turn make up the structure of a cell (please remember this for later also). But, crunch these numbers: the time necessary to form the simplest protein chain (100 amino acids) via random chance processes is calculated as 15 billion years (the oldest estimated age of the earth) times 10 to the 60th power (from Illustria Media: Where Does the Evidence Lead?). That’s a BIG number! And this is just ONE protein chain! Now, recall above when I said, “one billion years is a LONG time” think of how long this time period is! If anything, it is mind boggling! Here’s another quote from Human Biology: (Concerning the disproving of spontaneous generation) “‘Pasteur: No living thing will appear in the flask because microorganisms will not be able to reach the broth.’ ‘His critics: If the “life force” has free access to the flask, life will appear, given enough time.’” Please recall above where I said, “How did we get life? The answer: "through random chance processes." What did the defenders of the idea of spontaneous generation say they needed? Time. All that is needed is time; lots and lots of time. What does evolution natural selection need? Natural selection is defined as a process by which a population of organisms becomes better adapt to their environment over vast amounts of time. Lots and lots of time. This means that evolution’s foundations are in a belief that was disproved by Louis Pasteur. Why? Because the forming of organic compounds out of inorganic compounds is impossible! But, we have yet to get to actual life! One protein chain is anything but life; the simplest of cells is comprised of 600 proteins. Let’s figure this ourselves; a singled celled organism comprised of 600 proteins would take 15 billion years times ten to the 60th power times 600. And we thought that assembling one protein by chance would take a long time? This is even more insane than assembling one chain. So, when do we finally get our single cell from our chemicals? Again, according to Human Biology we see the first cell 3.5 billion years ago. Does this time scale fit in with the time scale I gave you earlier? Absolutely not! The time scale of .5 billion years versus the reality of how long it would take for one protein chain to form just does not work out! The main point here, life could not possibly have come about by chance.

But what about the other idea used to support evolution is called “punctuated equilibrium”? Doesn’t that prove the idea? Punctuated equilibrium is the idea that there can be advancement from one generation to another (somewhat like what the movie “X-men” states).

In a ZOO 105 lecture, Prof Wendel Johnson explained to us that an organism cannot create that which it does NOT already have the genetic information to create. What does this mean? This means that something cannot form that which it Does not already have the information to form (example: a horse growing a wing, an ear of corn growing a hamster, pealing a banana and an iguana crawling out, etc, etc.). Though mutation does indeed take place, I will admit. But, mutation only allows for what genetic are already present (for example, an extra arm, leg, or an abundance in hair on one’s body. Why? Because the genetic information for these things is already present. Therefore, both evolution and intelligent design cannot be anything more than beliefs.

Now, why should intelligent design be taught in the public schools? Simply put, as long as evolution is taught, so should intelligent design. Why? Because, as I have demonstrated above, evolution is as much an idea as intelligent design. This is the only evidence I can offer; both of these beliefs are just that – beliefs, and nothing more.

In conclusion, if intelligent design is not taught along side evolution, then the teaching of origins should be completely exempt from text books, because all ideas of origins are completely ideas, because they cannot be observed or tested.



Do Not Teach it In School
By Jim Harris
Manifest Staff Writer

Where do we come from?

That is a question that we have asked for many millennia. We have two lines of thought, science and theology.

Science tells us that, over time, we have adapted and changed in order to survive in our environment and continue to thrive. This is the basic teaching of evolution.

Theology says that a divine power made everything, at the beginning of time, and it remains the same today as it was back then. This belief now called “Intelligent Design.”

The teaching of evolution is taught as theory, because as with all theories, it changes as we learn more. Many ideas and facts have changed since Darwin. Science is not afraid to say “maybe we were wrong” if some new fact should arise.

Intelligent design, on the other hand, is never to be questioned. It stems from the story of Genesis; only blasphemers and the devil himself dare doubt its content. How can anyone learn when something like that looms over your head?

It is easy to see that intelligent design has little to do with science and learning but everything to do with religion.
Religion is a personal choice and should be treated as such. The last thing we need is religious politics in our schools. Is it fair to the students that adhere to another spiritual ethos, that intelligent design is being forced on their beliefs?

There is nothing wrong with believing in intelligent design, having faith in a creator, and living up to those teachings. There is, however, something very wrong with forcing those things onto others. Trampling on a person’s fundamental right to choose goes against everything our country stands for. Be free to read your bible: Just keep it out of the classroom.