Last month, US President George W. Bush made waves by endorsing the notion that teachers ought to present the ideas of Intelligent Design (ID) alongside the theory of evolution in high school science classrooms. “You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas,” said Bush, “the answer is ‘yes.'”
ID supporters argue that life is too complex and organisms too suited to their ways of living to have come about through natural processes, as asserted by evolution. Instead, ID proponents invoke a Designer, and claim that it is possible to scientifically show that life was designed.
The majority of scientists dismiss ID as religion disguised as science. Yet proponents of ID are on the brink of legally forcing Kansas school boards to teach ID as a valid scientific alternative to Darwinian evolution. This decision would set a strong precedent for similar cases in the US and Canada.
The talk focused on whether ID should be taught in schools, and was put on by U of T student group the Secular Alliance last Friday. It featured DJ Grothe, the director of the Center for Inquiry, who spoke against the teaching of Intelligent Design in science classrooms.
Grothe began with a short clip wherein ID proponents blame society’s ills on secularism and humanism, and attribute practices such as abortion to the rise of evolutionary thinking. “Humanism is a religion that has gained an unmistakable grip on our schools,” American televangelist Pat Robertson was seen saying. “Students are forced to replace their faith in God with faith in man.”
During his talk, Grothe boiled down his argument against ID to three reasons: “It should not be taught in schools because it is unscientific, unwise, and unconstitutional,” he argued. “Unscientific because ID proponents have not produced any scientific evidence or research. Rather than advancing a scientific program and appealing to a scientific forum, they use political means to show why their evidence against evolution should be taught.”
Grother said that teaching ID in schools is unwise, because “science teachers have a responsibility to teach the best science of the day. Would you teach astrology in an astronomy class?” In addition, Grothe claimed that ID was religious and that its introduction into schools would violate the separation of church and state. Grothe also warned of the proliferation of large religious organizations who clamour against evolution and assist in efforts to introduce ID into classrooms. One such organization is Campus Crusade for Christ, which operates throughout North America on a $400-million-a-year budget; the organization has a chapter at U of T.
In an interview with The Varsity, Grothe dismissed the notion that schools should “teach the controversy” surrounding evolution. “There is no scientific controversy regarding the acceptance of evolution. The scientific evidence demands the verdict of evolution….However there is a cultural controversy. I think Intelligent Design can and should be taught in a history class or philosophy class as a social controversy, but not as a science.”
During the question period, one vocal audience member stood up to challenge the audience’s near-unanimous support for evolution. After a long introductory statement asking for tolerance and pleading to be allowed to go on without interruption, he asked four prepared questions and then read off a long statement that purported to prove the falsity of evolution. Most of his statements received chuckles from the audience but patient responses from Grothe. After presenting his point of view, the audience member advised attendees to visit the website www.evolutiondeceit.com for more evidence.
“You can’t go through life thinking you know everything,” he told The Varsity. “I don’t know exactly what Intelligent Design is, but the debate is all about whether God exists,” he said. “I think God should be taught in the classrooms.” He met with hostility during and after the talk, mainly for taking up a lot of time.
One patient voice of opposition was Dr. Larry Moran, a professor of biochemistry at U of T, who countered the audience member with the website talkorigins.org. Moran’s office server hosts an Internet discussion group called talk.origins, which is devoted to debating the evolution vs. creation controversy. Started in 1988, the newsgroup has also spawned an archived website, talkorigins.org, a compendium of articles presenting the evidence for evolution, and counter-arguments to common creationist claims.
In addition to countering the audience member, Moran also criticized the third pillar of Grothe’s case against the teaching of ID-the fact that it would be unconstitutional. “You cannot defend against a cultural attack by invoking the Constitution,” Moran said. “It’s the wrong strategy.
“[Evolutionists] rely on the courts to defend them as their first line of defense.” That, he said, “plays into the creationists’ game-it reinforces the notion they’re being oppressed by the atheist establishment.”
“By and large there is no traction (for ID) among university students in Canada,” said Moran. “U of T students getting up in class to air anti-Darwinian views would likely get laughed at by their fellow students. Most students at U of T don’t see a conflict between their science and their religion,” he said. “They just don’t see a controversy, so it’s hard to stir them up.”
