Return to Intelligent Design stories index
Samplings from the wide variety of essays, letters and emails received by The Mountain Enterprise in just one week on this subject
Jan. 6, 2006
Katherine King:
The public was told that the intersession course on Intelligent Design (ID) at FMHS was intended “to help students apply critical thinking to questions about evolution and Intelligent Design” and to help them “examine the issues from all sides.”
The important word here is “all” sides, which implies more than the two apparently intended to be represented. [It appears] the creator of this course, like the creators of the Dover, PA policy on ID, posits a false dichotomy, an unnecessary opposition between a divine Designer and natural law.
A course that would stimulate critical thinking would replace at least half of the proposed 24 videos with readings from great thinkers who saw no contradiction between natural law and God.
First, I think of the great scientist Galileo (1564-1642), who believed that Nature proceeded from Divine Law and the Bible from Holy Spirit, the first being concerned with physical truths, the second with spiritual truths. [Letter to Madame Christina di Lorena, Grand Duchess of Tuscany.]
A debate on the difference between spiritual and physical truths would no doubt stimulate much critical thinking among students taking the course.
The great philosopher and scientist René Descartes (1596-1650) also argued that God could have created the world by creating laws of nature to operate on an original chaos: “it may be believed, without discredit to the miracle of creation that, in this way alone, things purely material might, in course of time, have become such as we observe them at present.” He further maintained that the nature of these material things “is much more easily conceived when they are beheld coming in this manner gradually into existence, than when they are only considered as produced at once in a finished and perfect state.” [From the Discourse on Method, Part 5; translated by John Veitch, Chicago 1908.]
What might the students debate here? Since for Descartes, the human soul alone was necessarily “expressly created,” it could be interesting to consider at what point in time Descartes, had he known the theory of evolution, would have believed it appropriate for God to “join and unite” the soul to the human body.
Another question to debate: Galileo and Descartes put no limitations on their God’s power. Does ID, on the contrary, put limitations on God’s power? Do its adherents claim that God was not “intelligent” enough to have “designed” through natural selection, no matter how difficult it is for our human brains to conceive?
Both Galileo and Descartes were devout believers in both Christianity and the laws of science. Both believed that the power of their God was great enough to set in motion forces that would operate eternally on the material world. They and many other scientists before and since have seen proof of God’s existence in all the wondrous workings of the natural world rather than letting belief in a particular God’s existence constrict their perceptions of that natural world.
I do not believe that the three-week intersession courses need to contain academic subject matter, but if a course is billed as such, it should. “Either-Or” thinking rarely stimulates critical thinking. Considering multiple sides of a question nearly always does.
Joe Renick:
The controversy over intelligent design (ID) and its place in public school science education is based largely on misrepresentations and distortions designed to protect an undisclosed, but deeply entrenched, “evolution-only” policy. This strategy keeps ID out of the science classroom by portraying it as religion, not science. However, if one looks beyond the assertions to the evidence, a completely different picture emerges. The nature and significance of that evidence can best be understood by first examining young-earth creationism and evolution.
Young-earth creationism, or creation science, attempts to show that there is convincing scientific evidence that is consistent with a particular literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account.
Research is focused on premises such as a young earth (tens of thousands of years old) and a worldwide flood. Because its premises are derived from a religious source, the Supreme Court ruled that the teaching of creation science is unconstitutional.
Modern evolutionary theory poses two fundamental premises. The first is that all species evolved from a universal common ancestor through natural undirected processes. The second is that natural selection acting on genetic variation provides the explanatory mechanism. Science claims that the first is undisputed fact while the details of the second are still being worked out.
Critics of evolutionary theory point to evidentiary weaknesses of the fossil record. They also raise the question of how natural undirected processes can account for the diversity and complexity of life. Some evolutionists respond to these criticisms with the accusation that anyone who criticizes evolutionary theory is religiously motivated.
One can not help but ask ‘Was District Judge John Jones religiously motivated when he banned ID from public education in Dover because he found that its supporters on the school board were religiously motivated?’
With regard to ID, it must first be pointed out that the appearance of design in nature is uncontroversial within science....The real controversy is whether the appearance of design is only “apparent” design: resulting from natural unguided processes, or “real” design: the product of intelligence.
Thus far, no one has been able to propose an even remotely plausible natural mechanism to explain the appearance of design. The question remains open.
What is it in biology that “looks” designed?
For over 2000 years the order and regularities observed in the natural world and the wonderful “fitness” of living creatures within their environments have been regarded by natural philosophers as general evidence of an underlying intelligence. Today, however, through the extraordinary discoveries of molecular biology, science has found astonishing design-like features deeply embedded within the fundamental machinery of life.
When scientists look within the biological cell, they see far more going on than just physics and chemistry. They see a genetic code, information encoded in DNA, and molecular machinery that carries on the life processes of the cell. They see higher order processes such as regulation, integration, feedback, contro—the very same processes that are found in Systems Engineering—the development, construction, and operation of complex systems designed by human engineers. These design-like features were so convincing to Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, that he gave the warning that “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved.”
The genetic code is an observed fact of cellular biology. The design inference emerges from that fact. While ID may have implications that are consistent with religious beliefs, it does not depend on those beliefs.
The premise that ID sets forth is that an inference to design is not just reasonable—it is compelling. The biological cell looks designed in precisely the same sense that the Space Shuttle was designed. Design is an emergent property of factual evidence. It is called “intelligent design” to distinguish it from naturalistic design.
ID is science, not religion.
Joe Renick is Executive Director of the Intelligent Design Network, New Mexico Division. He is also a design engineer. (www.idnet.com)
Nicole Francus:
As a credentialed secondary English teacher in a neighboring district (who lives in Frazier Park), I am outraged and embarrassed that, beginning today, my home district is teaching intelligent design in opposition to evolution. A U.S. District court has concluded that intelligent design is not science, and therefore cannot be taught alongside evolution in science classes. Now, FMHS and the El Tejon School District are single-handedly attempting to reclassify both as philosophy in order to teach intelligent design in a public school.
Intelligent design has been set forth by its proponents solely as a science. Even Phillip E. Johnson, considered the father of the intelligent design movement, “acknowledges that the goal of the intelligent design movement is to promote atheistic and creationist agenda cast as a scientific concept” [Wikipedia].
Evolution is an accepted field of scientific study, intended to be taught as a science as prescribed in the California State Science Standards. To remove it from the science classroom would violate the prescribed California State Science Standards, as well as the statement by State Superintendent Jack O’Connell on December 20, 2005 in response to the court ruling in Pennsylvania.
“Believing in a a divine being does not preclude respecting accepted scientific theory, and it is an important distinction that must be respected in our schools” [California Department of Education].
Presenting evolution as a belief system rather than a science precludes respecting accepted scientific theory as mandated by the standards and by O’Connell.
O’Connell does allow for philosophical instruction in California schools in his statement (which hardly applies since intelligent design is touted as a science).
There is an appropriate place in public education for discussion about “divine creation, ultimate purposes, or ultimate causes” in “history, social science or English-language arts courses” [California Department of Education].
The Mountain Enterprise reported that the FMHS Philosophy of Design course syllabus lists 24 videos as instructional materials: one geology video (is this philosophy?) and 23 videos on intelligent design (is this philosophy?), none of which are aligned with the state stand-ards for History or English or state-adopted materials for these subjects.
The intelligent design videos are aligned with the Institute for Creation Research, which states on its website: “We believe God has raised up ICR to spearhead Biblical Christianity’s defense against the godless and compromising dogma of evolutionary humanism. Only by showing the scientific bankruptcy of evolution, while exalting Christ and the Bible, will Christians be successful.”
The Northwest Creation Network [produced many others], which states on its website, “Our mission is to equip Christians to witness effectively to those who believe in evolution, and inform the general public of the scientific evidence which supports creation.”
Make no mistake about it--this is intelligent design taught in opposition to evolution in a scientific context.
The “philosophy” syllabus also lists prominent speakers from the fields of science and religion but strangely no philosophy professors....This “philosophy” course does not present the balanced view promised by the instructor, principal, and Board of Trustees. It does not adhere to O’Connell’s guidelines for appropriateness to be used in California schools.
It appears those involved have not researched the state’s position on intelligent design to ensure compliance.
Based on O’Connell’s statement, presenting evo-lution as a belief system in order to teach intelligent design in opposition to it will be proven just as unlawful as trying to wedge intelligent design into the science curriculum.
This is an academic and legal disaster promoted by two educators and sanctioned by the Board of Trustees, but it is you and I who will pay for their capricious decisions. We must speak out: write, call, protest, before their actions take us all down a slippery slope.
Bob Anderson:
Last week’s front-page article regarding “intelligent design” was an exercise in futility from my perspective—the proverbial “blind leading the blind” and in this case reported by the blind. It represented two individuals arguing from positions neither can irrefutably prove and a reporter making a rush to judgment.
Both the Christian and the atheist approach the issue from a presupposition of self-serving interest for or against the existence of God, and use the origin of man as the basis of proving their point.
The interesting fact is that both positions require faith in order to even start, because neither can establish an absolute beginning point without it—just try.
It’s kind of like two kids fighting over whose dad’s better, stronger, wiser or tougher: un-provable by the children fighting in the playground.
It’s kind of unfortunate that the writer of the article peppered the facts of a worthwhile discussion with an apparent bias portraying the atheist as an “intellectual” authority and the Christian as a bumbling buffoon. This is an unfortunate and inaccurate portrayal of both individuals. I have knowledge of both, and both are respected members of our community with vastly differing and strongly held views, and it is extremely unfortunate that a talented reporter, whom I respect for her attempts for “fair and balanced” reporting, could have been so far off the mark.
I’m not a biologist, but the last time I looked evolution was and is still an unproven “scientific theory.” And theory is just that: theory, and requires faith in its presupposition until irrefutably proven from beginning to end with facts—just the facts.
Neither evolution nor intelligent design meet this criteria.
It’s all faith, my friend—just try breathing without it.
Chris Buma:
Thank you for your investigative reporting on the erroneous information provided to the ETUSD trustees regarding the interim class to be taught at FMHS. I was dismayed to learn that the list of instructors included the names of qualified people who had refused to participate, as well as a person who is deceased...The advertising of a class promising a balanced discussion of the issues, which appears to serve primarily as a pretext for a promotion of Intelligent Design, is unfortunate.
As a Christian and a pastor, I have a clear bias toward the theory that God created the universe. However, mine is not a scientific statement.
It is a statement of faith. In a country which regards as essential the separation of Church and State, it is of great importance that statements of faith not be promoted in other than religious arenas, i.e., home, synagogue, mosque, church, religious school, etc.
This could have been a wonderful academic opportunity to educate. However, the planning appears to have been lacking.
Ken Hurst:
I would like to explain why it was important to object to the offering of an elective intersession class at Frazier Mountain High School titled “Philosophy of Intelligent Design.”
Upon reviewing the syllabus presented to the school board on December 14, two things were apparent. First, although a claim was made that the class would balance Intelligent Design with evolution, it was not even close. Second, the class was very likely to violate the first amendment to the Constitution prohibiting “an establishment of religion,” and hence exposed our school district to a costly liability which we could not afford.
An examination of the syllabus (available at http://www.mountainenterprise.com) revealed that the topics and subtopics to be covered were chosen from a Creationist perspective.
Class material was to be presented primarily via guest speakers and videos. Of the five speakers listed on the syllabus, three represented Creationism. The two who represented evolution would not be able to appear.
Of the 24 videos listed, The Mountain Enterprise found that 22 “are produced and distributed by advocates of Intelligent Design or Creationism.”
The superintendent of the school district agreed that the class was far from balanced when I talked with him on December 27, and promised that the syllabus would be reworked to bring balance or the class would be cancelled.
Proponents of the class argued that since the class was called a “philosophy” class and not a “science” class, all the recent court decisions against the teaching of Intelligent Design/Creationism as science in public schools were irrelevant.
This was wrong for two reasons:
First, according to the syllabus, over half the class time planned to deal with science subjects such as evolution, thermodynamics, radiometric dating, and the fossil record. The attempt to call it “philosophy” did not change the nature of the subject matter, and hence this was a rather transparent attempt at a semantic end-run.
Second, even if it were philosophy, the focus of the class would have been teaching the foundations of a religious viewpoint, which would have run afoul of the First Amendment.
Why is it important that the class be balanced, and why would the class as represented by the syllabus have run afoul of the first amendment?
The Supreme Court in the 1987 Edwards vs. Aguillard case used the “three-pronged Lemon test” named after the 1971 Lemon vs. Kurtzman case to determine if there is a conflict with the [prohibition against the establishment of religion in the U.S. Constitution].
•First, the class must have a secular purpose.
•Second, the class’ primary effect must be to neither advance nor inhibit religion.
•Third, the class “must not result in an excessive entanglement of government [the public school] with religion.”
If the class is not balanced and properly presented, then the effect will be to advance a particular set of religious beliefs.
The lack of balance evident in the syllabus indicates that the class certainly fails the second test.
Strong arguments could be made that it fails the first and third tests as well.
Given the rather large potential liability that the district might incur as a result of offering the class. (the plaintiffs’ legal bills in the recent Dover, Pennsylvania case were over $1,000,000) and knowing from my own experience as a parent, and as the Lead Mentor for the FMHS Robotics Team, how far we stretch the limited resources of our small school district already, and believing that the Constitution is worth abiding by and protecting, I feel that there was no other path than to object as strenuously as possible to the offering of this class as represented by the syllabus.
Return to Intelligent Design story index
