Blog #9: "Flock of Dodos and the Evolution versus Intelligent Design Debate"

To begin with, the debate between teaching evolution and intelligent design in our public schools is one of many complications. When evolution is taught as part of the required curriculum, it can lead to people who question their faith. When intelligent design is taught, all sorts of red flags spring up because while intelligent design doesn’t necessarily involve God, it still involves a “higher being” and this violates the separation of church and state. And to teach both and the controversy between them brings still more problems with it. Usually it is best to present both sides to an argument, and let the people decide for themselves what they feel is the best answer for themselves, but this case is different. When the concept of “Where did we come from?” comes into play, the stakes are raised ten-fold. The teachers involved could intentionally or subconsciously teach biased lessons either for or against intelligent design, based on their own religious beliefs. Because of this, most educators and officials are against the concept of “teaching the controversy.”

Personally, I believe that there is no simple answer to a problem such as this. To begin with, it’s kind of like achieving world peace. Sure, it’d be nice, but who are we kidding? There are too many strong supporters on either side willing to fight at all costs. That being said, there are four possible solutions, none of which promise a satisfactory nod from all the people involved.

First, there is the “teach only evolution” option. This raises conflicts because as stated above, it can force students to question their own faith. The Evolution versus Intelligent Design article however, states that “evolution does not imply atheism” and that “evolution doesn't disprove God, it tries to prove how he did it.” If others could understand this, perhaps the debate wouldn't be as heated. It then continues with “We think students should learn [evolution]. It's a very influential theory in modern biology, and students need to understand what it is. What hurts them is if you teach them to just absorb and swallow evolution as uncritical fact.” This is a problem, because with many different teaching style, there is no absolute way to enforce a uniform teaching standard.

The next option is the “teach only intelligent design” option. This requires introducing an aspect of a “higher being,” though not necessarily God, still a god-like being is involved, and this poses a problem for public schools. Religion cannot be a part of required curriculum in public schools, because it violates the separation of church and state. Again, the Evolution versus Intelligent Design article mentions that “the Constitution prohibits the states from endorsing or promoting a religious view.”

The third option is the “teach the controversy” option. This would include teaching both sides, and the reasons for the disagreements between the two. However, with this brings more problems, because as the article mentions “the problem comes when school boards or teachers want to push their own religious agenda and include it in regular curriculum.” This is not allowed in public schools, as stated above in the separation of church and state concept. The Flock of Dodos talked about the fact that teaching both has problems that leads into a never-ending cycle. Teaching intelligent design violates the separation of church and state, and teaching evolution causes people to doubt their beliefs and question what they believe in. This cycle continues, and forces the debate on and on.

The last option may make the most sense, now that we've covered all the problems that the previous three, but in reality, it comes with the most. This option is the “don't teach either.” However, we learn from the article that “administrators can't avoid the conflict by declaring they'll teach neither. If the state science standards include evolution, you have to teach it to qualify for the No Child Left Behind standards. Removing evolution is most likely an unconstitutional move...”

Whatever the best choice is, I'm not sure. I agree with most of the facts the article presented, even though they don't provide a clear-cut answer. My opinion is that to ensure proper funding results from the No Child Left Behind, and to ensure religion doesn't play a role in public education, my vote is to continue teaching evolution only in the classroom. Extreme care must be given to ensure that it is only presented, and not forced upon the students involved. If this can be achieved, then perhaps we are on the right track to solving this great argument.

In class, we discussed the debate that evolutionists use against intelligent design supporters. It is the “rabbit example,” and the hypothetical question is “If there was an intelligent designer, why didn't rabbits get designed better?” This is as a result of the rabbit's poor digestion system. A rabbit has to eat food, poop it out, and re-eat it to gain the necessary nutrients from the food. This is one of the questions evolutionists propose to intelligent design supporters.