• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Designs on Darwin; E-Town Forum Takes Up Topic of "Intelligent Design" in Schools

Posted on: Friday, 4 March 2005, 12:00 CST

Is "intelligent design" a credible scientific theory that should be taught in high school science classes alongside evolution?

That was the topic Tuesday at a forum of scientists, theologians and lawyers at Elizabethtown College.

The forum was a response to a controversial policy in Dover Area School District in York County. In 2004, Dover became the first district in the nation to require teachers to mention "intelligent design" in the classroom.

The policy has not sat well with many in the scientific community.

Paul Gross, emeritus professor of life sciences at University of Virginia, co-wrote "Higher Superstition" and "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design." At Elizabethtown Tuesday, he said 99 percent of the world's scientists believe evolution is fact and the "intelligent design" critique is "insignificant."

Since it is "insignificant" to the scientific world, does it deserve to be discussed in the limited amount of time available to a high school science class? Gross believes not.

The "intelligent design" theory really is not science, he said. It is religion, and the controversy really is religion versus religion (since some theologies have no objection to scientific evolution), not science versus science.

Niall Shanks, professor of philosophy and adjunct professor of biological sciences at East Tennessee State University, said "intelligent design" should not be taught in the science classroom yet. That's because not enough work has been done to make it a "real problem" for evolution.

Michael Behe, a Lehigh University professor of biochemistry, disagreed.

"Darwin didn't know what the molecular basis of life was," he said. "Modern science has found life to be highly complex, with molecular machines in cells which are best explained as a result of intelligent activity rather than Darwinian natural selection."

The Rev. Dave Martin, senior pastor at Evangelical Free Church of Hershey, said, "We want the best biology taught to our children, the best chemistry and the best physics."

But the rub is, he said, teachers who might go further than what is uncontested biology, and, intentionally or not, indoctrinate children into a "naturalist, materialistic worldview."

"You can't teach without a worldview. Metaphysical convictions are impossible to suppress. What you focus on or leave out is determined by your vision," Martin said.

"It is conviction, not fear, that drives us," he said in reference to proponents of teaching "intelligent design.""We don't want taught what we don't believe."

Ultimately, it's a matter of faith, Martin said. Without a security camera, it's difficult to prove whether evolution or divine creation was the way life on Earth began. But, he said, there are enough fingerprints in nature that the "heavens declare the glory of God."

John Haught, a theology professor at Georgetown University, asked, "Can a Christian be a Darwinian?"

Not if Darwinism means materialism, he answered. But there is no need to identify evolutionary science with materialist philosophy, said Haught, who wrote "God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution."

However, Christians can accept a providential God not in spite of, but because of, evolution's recipe of chance (or accident), natural selection and deep time.

Darwin's recipe is compatible with Christianity, Haught said, in that the accident is nature's openness to the future, the laws of nature are a universe we can count on, and deep time is a sign of divine patience, not an incompetent engineer.

Providence can be seen as a promise or hope that all of life's suffering will be redeemed at some point in the future, he said.

Source: Intelligencer Journal

More News in this Category