Does teaching "intelligent design" in public schools violate the separation of church and state?
Your Comments, Thoughts, Questions, Ideas
Science Buzz is supported by the National Science Foundation.Copyright © Science Museum of Minnesota, 2004-2010, except where noted.
i am familiar with how the american civil liberties union (ACLU) has weighed in on the teaching of intelligent design. since it is well-known as an advocate for maintaining the bill of rights, including but not limited to the 1st amendment, this doesn't surprise me much.
separation of church and state is often considered to be both 'keep church out of government' and 'keep government out of church'. not all people are christian, and non-christians should be allowed the same rights as citizens of the country. this was why thwy stopped doing a religious invocation at my high school's graduation, since it was a public school. the ACLU threatened to sue if they didn't. it just basically says 'if you want to be religious at that time, then go to the church of your choice'.
since the ACLU takes these stances they are unpopular with many, especially fundamentalist religious groups. what surprises me is that this debate still exists, more than 80 years after the famous 'scopes monkey trial' in tennessee.
although the clashes between science and religion have been around much longer than that, since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries. i recently read a french history book that described somebody as 'a good cartesian', referring to rene descartes, the mathematician. which suggested that theories in math and science were another religion, or in conflict with established 'religions'.
the oddest thing was reading one comment that said 'just because the judge rules doesn't always make it so'. judges are hired to settle legal disputes, and disagreeing with a judge in open court is a good way of getting arrested for contempt of court.
Iowaboy,
The 'because the judge rules doesn't always make it so' comment isn't odd at all. A judge's ruling makes something lawful or not lawful. It doesn't make it the truth. There's a big difference.
For example, the judge (and jury's) ruling on the OJ Simpson trial makes him "innocent of the crime in the eyes of the law". It doesn't mean that he didn't kill Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. Just one example of many that shows that a judge's ruling "doesn't always make it so".
No i don't think it violates the separation of church and state, depending on what is taught and how it is taught. If ID is taught like bible school, yes, there is some violation. But if ID is taught as other ways people see origins of life(like it is being introduced in literature classes), then no, there's no violation. As long as it is not being taught as a "must believe fact." at the same time it should not just be ignored, many students and their families do go to church or have other religiouns outside of school education, and that can't just be ignored and pretend to not exist. So ID should be taught, but maybe in a more general sense, as in how many other religions believe life was formed, not just one specific religion.
I believe teaching intelligent design in science in public schools should be allowed. Both evolution and intelligent design are both theories and they are both do not have clear evidence on which theory is true. Teaching both will challenge the minds of students. They will be able to express their opinions and thoughts more through debates in class. Both, intelligent design and evolution are connected to science wheather you like it or not. Science is the study of naturalism, but it does connect to supernaturalism. We study the facts of physics, chemistry, and biology that scientist have discovered. But, science changes throughout history and they are still looking for answers. Isn't the biggest question we humans want to know is why we are created, how we created, and what created us? So, we should study any data that we have. we should not avoid data of the theories of life. It is amazing how the world of science, anything in detail is so accurate like, cells, atoms, the sun, moon, light years. every thing...
we should have the right to know the theories of life, but it wont violate of first amendment in the constitution.
like i said, science is the study is naturalism, but it all goes down to how it was created and what did and why.
science and religion have connections.
PS: the "clear evidence" for evolution is found in every cell of every living thing on the planet. The evidence for ID is, by definition, supernatural, and thus immaterial.
What is the "clear evidence"? I definitely don't see it. All I see is immeasurable complexity that does not point to something being created randomly. And when looking at the origin of the world- you could also say "the big bang" was a supernatural event...
The evidence is in DNA. Every living thing is built by DNA. And all organisms have varying amounts of DNA in common. Organisms that are very similar, such as humans and chimpanzees, have a lot of DNA in common. Organisms that are not so similar, such as humans and pine trees, have much less DNA in common. And the patterns of shared DNA line up exactly the way one would expect if these organisms evolved over time through mutation and natural selection (two phenomena which, again, we know do happen). It seems highly unlikely that an intelligent creator would choose to create individual organisms in such a haphazard and inefficient manner.
There's also the extensive fossil record and morphology, both of which strongly match the DNA patterns.
The big bang is astrophysics, and has no bearing on evolution.
The problem is ID is not a science, but rather an untested explanation for life's existence on Earth. Evolution, on the other hand, has been well-tested, and has mounds of evidence in its favor. Also, in the 2005 Pennsylvania court case KItzmiller et al vs. Dover Area School District the judge ruled ID was unconstitutional and nothing more than another form of creationism ("creationism in a tuxedo" as some wags cleverly put it), a Bible-based concept being pushed by some of the school board members' religious motivations. The judge said (rightly so) that ID was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution and had no place in a science class.
In the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." I think this means that they should not prefer irreligion to religion either. Otherwise they are prevent individuals from expressing their faith-which is also against the first amendment.
When discussing evolution, it should be explained what definition is being used. Change within species is well-documented however change from one species to another is not and cannot be tested. Using the change of one species to another as the definition of evolution you could say that it is in the same boat as creationism- it is not a scientific fact but rather a theory.
I have studied both creation and evolution and I have found that when looking at the evidence it supports creationism much more than evolution. I have never found overwhelming evidence that favors evolution.
Not just untested, but untestable. The hallmark of science is that you can always come up with an experiment to test a scientific theory. The theory of Intelligent Design postulates a supernatural creator. Anything that is supernatural -- outside of nature -- by definition cannot be subjected to a natural-world test, and thus by definition is not science.
Good point, Gene.
I am recently doing a debate and i think that the info that you have here is very, well, informative. As for the topic, I don't think that ID is a science, (or a very solid theory, in fact...) but I do want it taught in schools. Altough i AM doing a debate on whether or not id should be taught in schools, and im on the con side, but that's not the point, now is it? I do like the idea of teaching different things to us, but I also think that the seperation of church and state should be kept. Plus, isnt that why they invented priviate schools? Just a thought...
ID is not science because it can't be tested. Plus no credible scientist actually believes in it. It should not be taught to students; you have to think about separation of church and state as well.
Well, except your premise is wrong in the first place. The constitution does not guarantee "separation of church and state" as liberals would have you believe. It simply guarantees that no religion shall be favored over another. There is NOTHING in the constitution or amendents thereof even mentioning separation of church and state.
Yes, Jefferson wrote about it after the 1st amendment was passed. That doesn't make it part of the constitution, and it isn't.
The supreme court even recognizes many instances in which religion and state can and do coexist, even using public funds to support "religious" activities, such as using a public school bus to take children to a parochial school or allowing prayer as part of a public school event. There are many other examples.
"Separation of church and state" -- which is a decent shorthand for that part of the First Amendment -- was not their premise. It was an afterthought, tacked on to the end. The premise is that ID is not science, for the reasons noted, and thus not an appropriate topic for a science course.
Isaac Newton was a mathematician and physicist, not a naturalist. To my knowledge, he had no special expertise in biology.
Newton died in 1727, more than 100 years before Darwin amassed the evidence necessary to demonstrate natrual selection. We cannot blame Newton for not knowing what had not yet been discovered. Similarly, we cannot dismiss later discoveries simply because earlier scientists did not know of them. (By this logic, we must conclude that televison, computers, and space exploration are also imposible, since Newton never "accepted" them, either.)
"Intelligent design" is the belief that some biological systems are so complex that they could not have evolved by natural selection. They must have been created by some supernatural, intelligent force.
While it is true that biological systems are complex and consist of many pieces, science has shown that those pieces have evolved from other, earlier pieces, often changing form and function over time. Similarly, the systems themselves evolve, adding or subtracting pieces to improve or change their function. No one has yet found an "irreducibly complex" system - one that only works when all the pieces are in place, and is made of pieces that have had no other purpose.
But from a scientific standpoint, the biggest problem with "intelligent design" is that it isn't science. Science does not deal with the supernatural - it only deals with the natural. Science can only look for explanations in the physical world, things that can be observed, measured, tested. The minute you introduce a "supernatural intelligence," you are no longer talking science.
Gene, you say "Science can only look for explanations in the physical world, things that can be observed, measured, tested." Question: Do you feel that the quest among theoretical physicists for a unified theory of the fundamental forces is science? One potential candidate in this quest is String Theory. But String Theory requires a 10-dimensional universe. The six dimensions beyond our commonly known four dimensional spacetime can't exactly be observed. Can we really call this science?
(If it should happen that String Theory *can* be proven, would this not indicate that, though unseen, there are six dimensions worth of reality (i.e., "supernatural" reality) that we four-dimensional "natural" beings are oblivious to on a daily basis (even in our common scientific thought)? Isn't it possible that the historical, "mystic" connotation of "supernatural" is a misnomer? I mean, if the existence of other dimensions were proven, then our four-dimensional spacetime is just a SUBSET of reality! Just like the old, well-known FlatLand allegory!
Oh, and consequently... If String Theory *can not* be proven, doesn't that make it non-scientific, just as the existence of a so-called "supernatural" being can't be proven and is therefore non-scientific?)
There are many scientists - "naturalists", those who believe that what we can see is all there is - who scoff at the idea of "higher dimensions". To them, wouldn't the idea of investigating such dimensions be utter foolishness? Do they consider String Theory to be science?
Mark -
Thanks for writing! These are all really good questions. I'll do my best to answer them - though I should state up front, I am by no means an expert in theoretical physics.
I don't know if there are any real good, simple explanations of what String Theory is. Here's the Wikipedia entry, though I have to confess, it was pretty much over my head. This site seems to be written in more down-to-earth language.
As I understand it, the theory goes something like this: all matter is made up of atoms. Atoms are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. Those particles are made up of even tinier particles like quarks, bosons and leptons. And those particles are made up, not of smaller particles still, but of "strings" that vibrate in many dimensions. And that's where I get lost.
Scientists studying string theory make predictions, or hypotheses. They then test these predictions by doing experiments. If the experiment turns out as expected, then that is evidence that the theory is correct. If it turns out differently, then something is wrong in the theory. This is basically science in action.
Those strings are too small too see. (For that matter, so is everything smaller than an atom.) Scientists infer their existence by doing experiments. The smaller the particle, the bigger the experiment must be to find them. Strings are so small, that no equipment on Earth is powerful enough yet to conduct the necessary experiments (although a new particle accelerator in Switzerland will be big enough to put some pieces of the theory to the test).
So yes, String Theory is science:
At every step, scientists look for evidence of strings in the natural world.
To answer your questions
I hope the above explains that yes, String Theory is indeed science. It's a scientific theory that has yet to be fully tested, and may turn out to be wrong. (Unlike evolution, which has been tested for almost 150 years and has always come out on top.) Let me now answer some of your specific questions more directly:
Nobody can "observe" a black hole, either. But we know it's there, by the way it interacts with other matter. Similarly, no one can "observe" a sub-atomic particle. But again, we infer its presence by the way it affects other matter. So, if these other dimensions do exist, we will know it by seeing how they influence the dimensions we can observe.
Bingo! If String Theory is correct, and there really are 10 dimensions, then the six we can't see are not "supernatural." They are part of nature--just a part that we can't see. Remember, no one ever saw a living cell before 1655. No one saw DNA before 1953. No one ever saw an atom until (I believe) the 1990s. These things were never "supernatural." They were always there as part of nature, just too small for us to see until we developed the right technology.
It's important to make the distinction between "can not be proven" and "can be disproven." They are not the same thing.
A scientific theory makes predictions. Scientists then look at nature to see if the prediction came true. In this way, the theory can be proven, or it can be disproven. The only way a theory "can not be proven" is if it does not make any predictions about things that can be observed in nature. That is supernatural, and that is not science.
Supernatural beings, by definition, are not part of nature. Thus, natural evidence can not prove or disprove their existence. By contrast, String Theory will be proven or disproven by natural evidence.
String Theory makes predictions. If higher dimensions exit, then atoms and particles should act one way. If the dimensions do not exist, then they will act another way. String Theory will eventually be tested through this scientific method of observation and experiment. If it fails to pass the test, it will not be accepted as true. But the process of developing it, testing it, and (if necessary) rejecting it will be a classic example of science in action. So, in that sense, it will always be "scientific."
Well, I can't speak for anyone else. But String Theorist are trying to explain nature, by looking for evidence of higher dimensions in nature. If they can provide such evidence, then I suspect that these so-called "naturalists" (and you are using that term in a different way than I am accustomed to hearing) would, I presume, accept nature's evidence. Until such evidence is found, then they have every right to remain skeptical. But the search for natural evidence is itself scientific.
It all just shows how poorly educated the main populus is on many matters! I like the comment above that it is not about not teaching ID in school its about where that should happen-NOT in a science class and not in government schools unless it is all truly a social studies course on religions to study them not to tell people what to believe. I like the comment somome said that, " ok the bible says that the Earth is flat-must we teach that in geology classes?"
Whats "intelligent design?"
People who are pushing for intelligent design are just mud throwing, trying to push their beliefs onto others, through the school system,(which is owned by the government, therefore violating the seperation of church and state). Obviously they don't know the meaning of "Science".
I.D should not be taught in school merely on the fact that it is based on religious beliefs. There is no scientific evidence that promotes I.D. and therefore no reason to put into the students' curriculum. Everything taught in school is based on fact, it has been proven, it's common knownledge, or it has the evidence to back up a theory. Promoting I.D. into classrooms breaks away from traditional learning. If the parents wanted their kids to learn about I.D. or religion they would teach them themselves or send them to a Catholic school. To push religion upon high school students is just society's way of conforming young minds. They have been seeing that individuals and more and more students have been forming their own opinions on creation and they want to put an end to free thinking. So to conclude, I.D. is nothing but religious activists trying to push their beliefs upon the young and moldable minds of the youth of America.
I.D. is not taught in Catholic schools. The Catholic Church has repeatedly and publicly accepted the scientific truth of evolution: Pope Pius XII in 1950, Pope Jophn Paul II in 1996, and Pope Benedict XIV, Cardinal Schonborn and Cardinal Coyne this year.
These men reject any attempt to use religious texts, such as Genesis, to explain scientific phenomenon. They also reject attempts to use science to answer spiritual or philosophical questions, which by their very nature are not subject to scientific principles.
Most Protestant denominations hold similar positions.
Looks like the Roman Catholic Church may be revisiting its official position on evolution, again. Pope Benedict XVI is hosting a private conference this week with the aim of stopping the Church's mixed messages on the topic. At least one key guest, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn from Vienna, is a known supporter of the theory of intelligent design.
Each of the statements below is wrong. A recent article in Reason Online (reprinted from the Boston Globe) offers a handy list of five misconceptions and misunderstandings in the debate over "intelligent design":
The article's author, Cathy Young, shows how each of these statements is incorrect. It is a very good introduction to the issue.
Meanwhile, this article in the Washington Post does a good job of explaining the difference between religion and science. Each is very important, but we must not confuse one for the other.
Americans have been having similar conversations for 250 years. Here's a New York Times op-ed piece about the tension between faith and science (or the lack thereof) in Boston in 1755.
I especially like the last paragraph:
"Intelligent Design" supporters suffered an overwhelming defeat at the polls this week in Dover, Pennsylvania. The eight incumbent school-board members identified in the Kitzmiller case for insisting on "Intelligent Design" as an alternative theory to evolution all lost their seats in Tuesday's election to challengers who campaigned against teaching "Intelligent Design" as science. The election results will not directly affect the district judge's ruling in the Kitzmiller case.
Unfortunately, John, the Kansas Board of Education does not agree with us.
In fact, the Kansas Board voted to redefine "science" so that it could include supernatural explanations. How's that for changing the ground rules?
The Kansas standards (which will take effect in 2007 if they're not overturned) will now include statements that there is no natural explanation for DNA, that fossil records are inconsistent with evolutionary theory, and that some evolutionary explanations are not based on direct observations. (Local school boards decide what to teach in their classrooms, but the state board decides what material will be on the state-wide tests.)
Board chairman Steve Abrams told Reuters news, "This is a great day for education."
I don't think it's a great day for education. I think it's a sad day for education and for science. And Kansas and Pennsylvania aren't alone: 20 states are currently debating this issue. Think Minnesota is above the fray? Think again. Although creationist/intelligent design "theories" don't appear on Minnesota standardized tests, teachers may challenge evolutionary theory in classrooms with creationist/intelligent design ideas.
The National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers' Association--whose material makes up most of the Kansas standards, except for the intelligent design curriculum--informed the Kansas School Board that they would revoke their copyright privileges if the new standards were approved. So board lawyers plan to rewrite the document to avoid copyright violations...
Here's a news release from the American Association for the Advancement of Science on the Kansas decision.
In order to be a scientific theory, an idea must have three things.
1) It must be testable.
2) It must state clearly what the theory is and what is in it.
3) It must provide observable recreate-able evidence.
Sadly, Intelligent design lacks in all three areas, and thusly, is NOT a theory.
Think about it, trillions upon trillions of planets, it was bound to happen on at least ONE in the (theorized) infinite amount of time our universe has.
I am doing a presentation on Intelligent design on why and why not it should be taught in public schools. Does anyone have any information about this?
See the post above that begins, "A Seattle newspaper..." The link to the letters to the editor will show you the range of opinion on the issue. The other links will clarify why mainstream scientists don't think that intelligent design is science, and why they want it kept out of public school classrooms.
Also, click on the link titled "A Question of Evolution" in the top right corner of this page to find out more about what evolution is and is not, and what the Science Museum of Minnesota's position is.
Should intelligent design be taught in public schools?
"Intelligent Design" supporters don't necessarily dispute similarities between humans and other species, but they may interpret those similarities as evidence of an ultimate designer (or creator). Originally called "Natural Theology," this philosophical position predates Charles Darwin's scientific theory of evolution.
Following today's closing arguments today in the Kitzmiller case, Judge John E. Jones said he expects to decide by the end of the year if teaching "Intelligent Design" as a scientific theory in public schools violates the church-state separation outlined in the First Amendment.
I am doing a thesis paper on the idea of teaching intelligent design in high school classes and I am all for it and think that it should be equally explained in a science class as evolution already is. Could any one give me a few topics for disscusion in my paper? Thank you
It sounds harsh, but what about the idea of limiting access to, say, pharmaceuticals or transplant surgery to people who understand the science that makes such modern-day, scientific miracles possible? The only reason that medical experiments on animals are valuable and tell us what will work in people is that we all--animals and people--share key biological mechanisms derived from a common ancestor. You don't want to believe it? Fine, but then you should be consistent and not benefit from therapies developed from the theory of evolution!
And did so through evolution (according to most major faiths).
Very useful journal, thanx!
Related to your statement about sharing key biological mechanisms........You are almost there. Yes, the creator of animals also created humans.....think about it.
A Seattle newspaper published a bunch of what I think are letters to the editor on this issue. You might find some interesting topics.
You might click on the link at the top, right-hand corner of this page to find out the Science Museum's perspective.
And this article about T. rex bones found containing fleshy tissue has spurred a lot of discussion that you might find relevant.
Personally and professionally, I don't think that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution. Science answers HOW things happen, and evolution is one of the basics. Intelligent design doesn't provide any testable hypotheses to explain HOW anything happens.
Well, we at The Science Museum are not all for it, for the simple reason that "intelligent design" is not science. Science tries to find natural causes for natural phenomena. Intelligent design and other forms of creationism, by their very definition, rely on supernatural causes.
Science asks how the world works. Philosophy--and its major branch, religion--ask why. Two very important questions. But also very different, and need to be taught in different classes.
I understand Gene's response to the poll. I initially thought the options should reflect the type of breakdown he suggests--but ultimately favored the two choices that seem to represent the opposing positions in the Kitzmiller case.
Another problem with the question is that is presents creationism / ID as a battle between science and religion. It isn't. Creationism is bad science, to be sure. But most major denominations argue it is also bad religion.
The United Methodist Church, the Untied Presbyterian Church, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Lutheran World Federation, the Episcopal Bishops of Atlanta, the Roman Catholic Church, the American Jewish Congress, and many others all recognize evolution as a scientific truth. They reject using religion to explain scientific matters, such as how living systems work -- just as surely as they reject using science to explain religious matters, such as life's meaning and purpose. The two do not overlap.
According to Dr. Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education, the popularity of creationism is due not only to poor science educastion, but also to poor religious education. Religion, of course, is not taught in American public schools. Many children attend Sunday school, but most stop attending after age 12 or so. Thus, many Americans never learn the intricacies of their own faiths. This frustrates many religious leaders, such as the ones mentioned above, who must constantly tell their flocks "no, just because somebody has interpreted the Bible in a particular way doesn't mean our denomination accepts it."
(Interestingly, religious schools often offer better training in evolutionary science than state schools. Private schools are not subject to political battles over curriculum. They also offer extensive religious training, where students learn that evolution does not contradict their faith. Catholic schools have been teaching evolution for over half a century now, and Mormon-run Brigham Young University requires evolutionary studies for its biology majors.)
You said "Religion, of course, is not taught in American public schools."
You are incorrect. Religion is taught in American public schools, often as part of social studies courses, religions are examined and compared. This does not violate the establishment clause, because one religion is not favored over another.
You are correct, of course: public schools may teach about religion, but they are not allowed to teach religion itself. That is what I said, though in retrospect I can understand how my statement could be misunderstood. I apologize for the ambiguity.
Looks like the Roman Catholic Church may be revisiting its official position on evolution, again. Pope Benedict XVI is hosting a private conference this week with the aim of stopping the Church's mixed messages on the topic. At least one key guest, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn from Vienna, is a known supporter of the theory of intelligent design.
Perhaps "unreliable" is the wrong word, and I should have said "indecipherable." ;-)
I see your point for sure.