Intelligent Design

Is teaching Intelligent Design in public school an establishment of religion?
There is a current debate in the United States on allowing the discussion of intelligent design in the public schools. The issue is can we allow students in a public school to be exposed to the idea that there may be evidence of an intelligence in the formation of the universe without establishing a state funded religion? Is the introduction of the intellectual idea that there may be an intelligence who designed the universe a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America? Do we have to imply that the universe is rationally known as only a random accident and does not demonstrate any evidence of design in order to not establish religion? Is the religiously “neutral” position simply to set forth the idea of a universe that is random and without purpose? Would suggesting the idea that some scientists see in the universe evidence of design, purpose, and intelligence based on scientific data be the beginning of our loss of separation of church and state? This is the debate that is before our nation and our courts today.
Now we have groups on both sides who are zealots for their position on the issue of the universe being created or not created. There are those who are convinced of a purely atheistic viewpoint of life and those who are equally convinced of a theistic perspective. This is not new but has always been the way it has been. This is an important intellectual issue.
Because our emotions run so high on that issue we need to make sure we understand that is not the issue that is being discussed here. The question here is if presenting the idea that some scientists based on current evidence see indications of design in the physical universe instead of all things being able to be explained by random chance over extremely prolonged periods of time is a violation of the First Amendment of the United States? Are the expressions of such ideas and the study of the scientists who are reflecting on these concepts, if paid for by public funds a government establishment of religion?
Now a fair question to be asked is if such ideas would establish a religion one should be able to define what religion would be established. Sir Fredrick Hoyle, the Nobel Prize winning mathematician who could be seen as the great grand father of the intelligent design movement was moved by his mathematical studies in probability to the idea that there must have been an intelligence guiding the process of evolution. This led him to a belief in a type of pantheism in which this intelligence was part of the physical cosmos. Others in the intelligent design movement have only a vague sense of an undefined designer much like Aristotle’s “First mover” while others see this as affirming their faith in a more traditional deity. Clearly the idea of intelligent design does not lead to any theological harmony or even philosophical unity. So what is the dogma that we are establishing with the power of the state by allowing the discussion of intelligent design? Exactly what religion is being forced down the throat of our students with the coercive power of the state by reading an article by a scientist who sees evidence of design in the universe?
What is clear is that intelligent design is not promoting any of the major world religions or even one particular philosophical perspective. So, what religion is being established by allowing the idea of intelligent design being taught in our public schools? If this is a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment then at the very least we should be able to define exactly which religion is being established.
The purpose of the First Amendment was not to ban all discussion of great ideas in the public schools and some of these great ideas deal with theological ideas. One cannot read Plato’s “Republic” or Voltaire’s “Candide” without introducing some discussion of the divine. One could wonder in fact if people are even being educated in an adequate manner if they are not at least being introduced to basic metaphysical concepts. Is reading such classics a violation of the First Amendment? Or would it only be a violation if one quotes Plato in science class since he was a believer in intelligent design, but clearly not a member of any major world religion.
Now the other idea is at question here is one of establishment. Are those who are suggesting allowing the idea of intelligent design to be introduced into the discussion of ideas in the public school suggesting that intelligent design be taught as “dogma” by the public school teachers? For government to establish a religion it has to place the power and influence of the state behind an idea and declare that this is the official view of the government. Intelligent design does not question the basic mechanism of evolution but instead presents the idea that the evidence of the universe as currently understood leads some scientists to a view called theistic evolution instead of atheistic evolution. There is no desire in the intelligent design movement to stop teaching the “how” of the evolutionary process but only to give options about the “why” of the evolutionary process.
The intelligent design movement is not suggesting that the only view that be presented to students be that of intelligent design. They are not asking for intelligent design be established as the official position of the public school system. All that is being suggested is that the viewpoint of scientists who hold this theory be allowed as part of a discussion of ideas in the public class room. Intellectual neutrality is normally enhanced by allowing an open discussion of current ideas instead of using the force of the state to censor and ban some ideas. So if the intelligent design movement is only asking that teachers have the legal right to present these ideas of part of a the options along side the atheistic explanations, then where is the establishment of a religion by the state in allowing what is a current debate among scientists?
Now, the other aspect of the First Amendment is that the government cannot prohibit free speech. Being a teacher means that one is to educate students and have them go through a process of dialogue towards finding the truth. The Socratic Method is one that requires that students learn through a discussion of ideas. A bad idea is best discovered to be a bad idea in the midst of open and free discussion in the public square. It is not up to government to ban or censor ideas. They are to produce a truly safe space for the discussion to take place without taking sides. This is true neutrality.
The public schools should be encouraging students to think about great ideas and work through the process of forming personalized world views which will develop within them character, contentment, and competence. Why can we not trust our teachers and educators to develop curriculums that reflect a good dialogue instead of micromanaging them with fear of violating the law if they encourage an important discussion on a significant issue? Clearly as educators they need not to abuse their role by “dogmatizing” their world view to their students but instead help to lead the discussion into a better understanding of the key issues.
It is hard to not see the Pennsylvania court’s decision concerning intelligent design as being the establishment of the atheistic evolutionary perspective as the one state sanctioned world view of the universe. The court labels all others views as “religious” and “non-scientific” which implies they are irrational and false. The one “true” view of atheistic evolution is the only one that the state will teach and establish as the orthodox perspective endorsed and encouraged by the state. This does not seem very “neutral” or representative of the views found in our society. Instead it seems that the schools instead of being a safe public place for the open and free discussion of great ideas are instead an agent which aiming at representing one particular world view upon all of the students while censoring ideas which differ with a purely materialistic perspective upon life.
Now this is the exact opposite of the intention and hope of the constitution which is to keep any philosophy, worldview, or religion from being established as the state sponsored orthodoxy. While it may be hard to define atheism as a religion it clearly is one particular philosophy of life. I do not think the writers of the First Amendment desired the state to promote atheism as the official stance of the state any more than they wanted the United States of have one established state church.
It would seem therefore that we need to rethink this entire area. Why not allow a free, public, and critical discussion of great ideas about origins in our public schools? Why are we attempting to keep our children from asking the big questions of life? Is this helping develop them as persons or encouraging an intellectual arrested development by an over protective and anxious court system? Can education take place when we ask educators to excite students about learning with one hand tied behind their backs? Can educators educate when they are always afraid that there will be some violation of state and church?
An educational environment which is based on fear promotes the production of a mediocre education which fails to engage the intellectual passion of our students. Great discussions lead to great thoughts that can transform nations. If the republic is to be transformed and reach its potential greatness it would seem that this will come from a free discussion than from government censorship. That seems to be the hope and heritage given to us in the First Amendment. May we as a people and as a nation find our way in the present debate to engage this hope and heritage.