Unintelligent Design and Faith-Based Science

Someone once told me, Don’t discuss politics or religion, for it would surely be an unproductive discussion. Well, let me for a moment disregard that advice so intensely that I will discuss both of the proscribed topics, and, for good measure, I will add a bit about science.

Advocates of intelligent design purport that biological evolution is uncertain enough that alternative ideas should be advanced in science classrooms. In particular goes the argument, nature is so complex that no sequence of random mutations and natural selection could lead to life forms as they now exist; hence, underlying nature must be some "intelligence."

If you are like me, a scientist, you have heard countless criticisms of this point of view. In fact, scientists treat with dismay the idea that a non-scientific idea would be presented in a science classroom. The point is not that intelligent design is wrong in any existential way, but that it is just simply not science; hence, intelligent design has no place in a science classroom, least of all when presented as an alternative to biological evolution.

If this argument is so transparent to virtually all scientists, why does intelligent design seem to be gaining traction in our society? Why are we having numerous curriculum arguments and legal disputes on the topic? Why is it so difficult to rebut arguments that students should have an opportunity to consider these "alternate" explanations of observations about the world in which we live? Is the American ideal of giving every point of view due consideration not acceptable to science and to most scientists?

Maybe, just maybe, a partial answer is that scientists have failed miserably to instill any real appreciation of science in the minds of most of our citizens. Because most progress in science is made by a very small percentage of people, scientists tend to focus most of their attention on that small percentage. Too often we are complacent in the face of evidence that most people have no idea how science advances our knowledge of the world around us. Maybe this attitude and the behavior of scientists have come home to haunt us.

Science is quite mysterious to most people. Whose fault is this? Is it anyone’s fault? Shouldn’t the science community accept significant responsibility for this fact?

Faced with such a mysterious way to explain or to understand the world around us, is it surprising that many people see science as based on some kind of faith—not in the sense of a formal religion, but a mysterious explanation? Many people see science as "faith based." Since they see science as an accumulation of mysterious information and beliefs. Is it surprising that many people see both science and religion as mysterious ways to explain nature?

The intelligent design movement constitutes a threat to the integrity of the science curricula in our schools. If the science classroom becomes a forum for debating the relative merits of science and religion, it will create a schism that will seriously disadvantage science. Intelligent design deserves a forum in our society, but it needs to be recognized for what it is: a nonscientific explanation of some aspects of nature.

Science and religion can co-exist, but not in the science classroom. Science belongs in one classroom. Religion belongs in another.

While we should surely continue to object to actions to insert intelligent design into our science classrooms, we should also ask ourselves how the science community has contributed to the political, social, and educational environment in which this threat is now taking place.