Intelligent Design Tries to Make a Comeback

Just when you were hoping that Intelligent Design had gone the way of the Dodo bird, a small town school board always seems to become marred in the controversy. This time, it’s the Chesterfield County School District in Virginia, which, in its school memoranda, has decided that it wants students to “…expand their knowledge through research, to debate the concepts as presented, and to develop their creative and independent thinking skills”. In other words, they want to teach the “science” of Intelligent Design alongside Evolution.

Despite the decisive rulings against the teaching of “scientific creationism”, it seems the ID camp has not given up on trying to make everyone believe that their fantasy is tantamount to a scientific revolution. In fairness to the staff at Chesterfield, they may not be aware of just how thoroughly debunked and debased the theory has been ever since December 2005, when the Dover, Pennsylvania School Board lost its attempt to sell Intelligent Design as a secular alternative to Evolution.

The Dover Ruling

In October of 2004, in Dover Pennsylvania, the school board decided to include a disclaimer in its biology textbooks, saying that evolution was a “theory” and not fact, and that alternative explanations for the origins of life existed, primarily in a book entitled “Of Pandas and People”. A group of parents, angry at this development, decided to initiate a lawsuit, which resulted in a lengthy but decisive trial which would definitively answer whether or not ID should be allowed in public schools.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones (who was an admitted staunch conservative) found that ID violated the Constitutional separation of Church and State, and unfairly singled out evolution and misrepresented its scientific standing. He also agreed that ID was quite obviously religious in nature. Although the case brought in many of Intelligent Design’s “expert” witnesses, the prosecution showed decisively that ID presented no scientific argument on its own; instead, ID relied on the false premise that if any aspect of Evolution faltered, it would inherently mean that ID was true. This is nothing more that a false choice, since ID presents no real alternative explanations other than the classic “God in the Gaps” arguments.

To prove that ID was nothing more than dressed up creationism, the prosecution also showed that the board members had been advised by The Discovery Institute, an ultra conservative “think-tank” who’s primary mission is the spread of Creationism in American public schools, and as their website puts it: “…a belief in God-given reason and the permanency of human nature”. The prosecution also showed that both sides considered the issue to be a religious one, and that over 80% of the parents who wrote in to the school, whether for or against the disclaimer, expressed their opinions among religious lines.

Finally, it obliterated the ID camp by cross-examining the expert witnesses of scientific creationism by proving not only that each of star witness was devoutly religious, but also that their theories on the invalidity of Evolution was not based on scientific observation, but rather on strictly religious observance.

What does this mean for Chesterfield?

The decisive ruling has done much in the elimination of Intelligent Design from public schools, and the strange decision of the Chesterfield to potentially introduce ID theories in the classroom demonstrates their lack of understanding of both evolution, and of past rulings concerning Intelligent Design. Although their website maintains that they are committed to upholding the Constitution, their press release demonstrates their total lack of understanding of these two issues:

“We have received much interest and concern from our citizens relating to the theory of evolution as taught in our science classes. It is the School Board’s belief that this topic, along with all other topics that raise differences of thought and opinion, should receive the thorough and unrestricted study as we have just articulated. Accordingly, we direct our superintendent to charge those of our professionals who support curriculum development and implementation with the responsibility to investigate and develop processes that encompass a comprehensive approach to the teaching and learning of these topics.”

What they mean by “much interest” relating to the theory of evolution (and they love to misuse the word theory, don’t they?) is that religious parents are obviously averse to the idea of their kids being taught that human being descended from a primate ancestor. It’s also doubtful that their superintendent would have the scientific gumption to properly “investigate and develop processes that encompass a comprehensive approach to the teaching and learning of these topics”. It is more likely that they would not present the evidence in a fair manner, and take the opportunity to teach children the laughable idea that species were spontaneously created by some supernatural force.

Their notion that “Self-directed learning occurs only when alternative views are explored and discussed” implies that Intelligent Design is somehow a valid scientific opinion, which it quite obviously is not. It’s just another example of the religious right attempting to usurp the findings and works of science in favor of their mythological world view. If Chesterfield continues to push the issue, they may quickly find themselves not only embarrassed at their own backwardness, but may also face the hefty cost of legal action brought on by concerned parents.