Intelligent
Design deserves a place in schools
Jordyn Taylor
Most people have their own ideas and beliefs about creationism. Some have a belief
in a supreme being, such as God, while others find the theory of evolution more
practical. There are many religious people who accept both beliefs.
The problem is, opponents of the theory of evolution assert the science curriculum
in public schools is unjust because it only advocates the teachings of evolution
and rejects teachings of creationism. Although the United States Constitution
prohibits teaching religion in public schools, proponents of Intelligent Design
are trying to put the theory in classrooms and the science curriculum.
The debate about the merits of teaching Intelligent Design in public schools
as a science has been controversial. This month, the state Board of Education
in Dover, Penn. and Topeka, Kan., are being forced by Intelligent Design proponents
to amend the science curriculum in public schools.
Intelligent Design supporters argue science classes must allow for both supernatural
and natural explanations of phenomena because only teaching evolution unfairly
discriminates against those holding creationist beliefs.
According to articles from the Discovery Institute Web site, supporters of Intelligent
Design believe teaching both it and evolution allows a scientific basis for religious
belief without causing the state to promote a religious belief.
However, opponents who do not want to allow Intelligent Design to be taught in
public schools think it violates the concept “separation of church and
state.” Furthermore, the scientific community rejects Intelligent Design
as a scientific method. They argue it is a pseudo-science or junk science because
its claims cannot be tested by
experimentation.
Paul Mirecki, a department chairman at Kansas University, told CNN last week
that creationism is mythology. He said, “Intelligent Design is mythology.
It’s not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is
not.”
In August, President George W. Bush gave backing to the teachings of Intelligent
Design alongside evolution.
“
I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of
thought,” he said.
Some may argue, however, that the president’s endorsement for Intelligent
Design is biased because of his political and religious affiliations.
The answer to this controversial question is complicated. I’m not sure
if the battle is political or scientific.
Politically and scientifically, I would agree it is inequitable to teach only
the theory of evolution in public schools.
Evolution deals with how life on Earth changed or changes over the course of
time. Intelligent Design addresses the question of the origin of the universe
and its intelligent cause or agent. I think it is wrong to deny teaching the
theory of Intelligent Design alongside the theory of evolution.
Neither method is factual. They are theoretical. Evolution does not settle questions
about reality and neither does Intelligent Design. As I see it, there is enough
room for studies of both the messiness and complexities of evolution and the
mystical characteristics of life resulting from an “intelligent agent.”
Jordyn Taylor is a junior journalism major.
.
|
