A Classroom’s Unscientific “Science

Condemning the theory unscientific, “Unintelligent Design” attempts to prove the irrelevance of intelligent design in the classroom. It defines intelligent design as a doctrine that attributes the complexity of nature to “divine intelligence at work.” Recognizing the theory’s foundation of faith, the article labels intelligent design as a facet of religion and separates it from classroom criteria. However, the author’s use of the terms “science” and “faith” to demote intelligent design fails to produce an accurate argument. In reality, the flaws pointed out in intelligent design also apply to evolution. This realization unveils the injustice of teaching one interpretation over the other. “Unintelligent Design” creates a framework of shaky reasoning for abolishing intelligent design from public schools.

Examining the article’s closing statement shows how the author forgets the boundaries of science. Supporting the sole presence of the evolutionary theory in schools, the writer states, “Children should be taught about faith, and it is to be hoped they will learn respect for it. But in science class? Please teach science.” Observable, measurable, and repeatable, science cannot surpass direct experimentation. Contrary to the argument of “Unintelligent Design,” evolution falls outside the grip of science. Both theories lack scientific validity because no one observed the event when it occurred. This fact prevents researchers from accurately testing their assumptions of a past occurrence. Attempting to prove evolution’s progress, the writer says, “Mountains of data have confirmed his [Darwin] theory of evolution of living organisms by mutation and natural selection,” but does not give any examples. How can one scientifically prove a theory with droppings of data and no direct observation? With this reasoning schools should eliminate both theories from the classroom because neither offers strict science.

Another argument the writer makes identifies faith-based theories as intolerable. By making this point the author unknowingly attacks the theory of evolution. In the Bible Hebrews 11:1 states, “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Since these two theories rest on an unseen event people can only hope and believe they have the correct interpretation. Two scientists may look at the same artifact but come to opposite conclusions due to different convictions. Referring to intelligent design, the article condemns teaching faith “as if it were science.” Why does “Unintelligent Design” present evolution as an exception if it also stands on faith? That intelligent design cannot belong in classrooms due to faith does not explain why evolution—also a package of faith—can.

Even though evolution holds many uncertainties as a theory, the article states, “To consider creationism and its stepchild intelligent design as if they were science is to inflict an injustice on school children.” It claims that by teaching intelligent design in schools children will “wonder whether scientists have any confidence in themselves.” Presenting the theory of evolution alone with a factual tone just to make scientists look confident would rob children of the big picture. Schools should not hold students back from knowing a theory’s challenges for the sake of scientists’ reputations. Exalting a single theory may deceive students into thinking evolution provides the only option. Rather than having the schools decide, students ought to know each standpoint to develop their own conclusions. To give students only one side of the argument dishes up true injustice to our society.

To summarize, the interpretation presented in the article “Unintelligent Design” contains flaws and spontaneous judgments. Questioning the scientific validity of intelligent design does not explain why evolution can remain in schools. Neither theory falls under the jurisdiction of science. Against the presence of faith in schools, the writer condemns intelligent design without realizing that evolution also requires a dose of faith. Because no one saw the occurrence, evolution and intelligent design rest on convictions and not science. In reality, these points cause the writer’s intent to backfire since they apply to evolution as well as intelligent design. If the columnist thinks faith and an unscientific approach make intelligent design inadequate, why allow evolution? On the contrary, if schools want to strictly conform to science both theories have no place in classrooms. Schools must avoid weeding out the unpopular and start presenting the entire perspective or none at all.