Intelligent Design is religion disguised as science, and as such, should not be taught in our public schools.

Introduction The town of Dover, PA looks like any other small towns in central Pennsylvania, but in
October 2004 when the local school board proposed a slight alteration to the high school biology curriculum a fault line erupted between those who think of intelligent design as science and something that should be taught alongside evolution, and those who think of it as religion disguised as science. As a science teacher myself, I was very interested in this subject, and how school districts nationwide are pushing initiatives recently to put intelligent design in their biology classes. These school districts are struggling with the dilemma of whether or not to teach creationism as an alternative view to evolution theory. If, as many scientific creationists believe, God's message is important in defining the content, aims, and conditions of educational practice, then creationism does belong in the classroom. However, those who propose that creationism is not science, and that "creation science" is a misnomer, are opposed to the intervention of religion into the public educational program; after all, public educational programs should be separate from concerns of the church. The Scientific Argument against Intelligent Design “Evolution has three core, defining elements, life forms change over time; they all descended from one or a few common ancestors; and natural selection produces these effects” (Slack 2007). But what exactly is Intelligent Design? Intelligent Design is a recent theory proposed that says that when you examine nature there are too many coincidences to the evolution of mankind, thus, there is an outside force that has been guiding evolution (Taylor and Ferrari, 2011). This outside force could be called God by some people. The phrase scientific creationism came into use in the early 1970s after a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1968. After the court's 1968 decision which overturned the 1928 Arkansas law banning the teaching of evolution, it became increasingly clear to creationists that they would get into the public schools of America only by advocating an alternative scientific theory. Evolutionary theory is based on the principles expounded by Charles Darwin, whose theory of natural selection explains how species are in a continual process of adaption to their environments. A look at primitive man reveals that humanoids of today have evolved from a decidedly different-looking ancestor (Brockman, 2004). Religious conservatives, since the days of the Scopes Trials of the 1920s have argued that evolution should not be taught in our public schools, and favored teaching creationism. Scientists have argued that if one looks at the world clearly, it will be apparent that evolution is a fact. Although evolution is explainable by a theory, that theory is explainable by facts, creationism, as yet does not offer facts, only beliefs and belief systems. The main argument for evolution is that there is abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution in action, from both field and the lab. Many, particularly Americans, feel that perhaps there is a place for both creationism and evolutionary theory, but not in the public school system where we are supposed to be teaching students truths based upon facts and the observable and not religious arguments. Oddly enough, according to a study by Taylor and Ferrari, the majority of Americans do not believe in evolution, even though most believe in plant evolution (Taylor and Ferrari, p. 152). But just because people do not accept a fact or it is unpopular, does not mean it should not be taught. Evolutionary fact, explainable by a theory, should remain in the science classroom. So why shouldn’t we teach Intelligent Design? In a pluralistic society, where all views are to be accepted? Why is this one so dangerous to teach? As a person who studied Physics in college, has taught science, and wants to be a employed science teacher, the lack of any scientific basis for Intelligent Design is one thing, but mainly I am bothered by it, because it gives credence to a religious belief system, mainly Christianity, and it flies in the face of our constitution. The Constitutional Argument against Intelligent Design
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." To achieve that goal, Thomas Jefferson argued for a "wall of separation between Church and State." Jefferson's phrase has become better known than the actual text of the Constitution, particularly since 1947, when the United States Supreme Court invoked Jefferson's "wall" as the ideal relationship for church and state (Slack 2007). Though that phrase has always seemed vague and hard to define, in many ways that "wall" remains the law of the land. The First Amendment was written at a time when the terms "state" and "church" were narrow and well defined in American society. Undeniably, the founding father's main goal was to prohibit the establishment of a state religion, such as Lutheran Sweden, Anglican England, or Catholic Spain. The establishment clause accomplished that aim. And although not spelled out specifically in the constitution as prohibitive, it was spelled out clearly in Jefferson’s Virginia Statutes. The language of the establishment clause goes beyond the prohibition of a state religion. Debate about the meaning of the clause began before ratification, but the discussion remained largely academic for most of American history. Not until the latter half of the twentieth century, after the Depression and urbanization (among other factors) had dramatically changed the nature and scope of the state, did the separation of church and state become relevant. The concept of "church" has changed dramatically, expanding from a few Christian faiths in 1787 to hundreds of religious groups today, both Christian and non-Christian.
“The Supreme Court, guided by those principles of a separation, has expounded upon these principles and said in various cases, that: (1) the state may not create an official church; (2) the state may not coerce or force a person to attend or stay away from a church; (3) the state may not punish a person for his or her beliefs; (4) the state may not prefer one religion over another; (5) the state may not participate in the affairs of religious organizations” (Gunther, 1991). Applying that test has proven difficult, especially in the education. Nevertheless, there are five factors that determine legality: First, any materials supplied at public expense must go directly to the student; Second, any services supplied at public expense must be provided by personnel not subject to parochial school authority; Third, state-funded services for students on parochial school grounds are permitted only if the contacts are limited and impersonal, such as administering standardized tests; Fourth, any benefit to a church must be the result of an individual's choice; no funds can go directly from the state to the religious organization; Fifth and finally, these requirements are eased somewhat for higher education because college students are more mature and not compelled to attend there. Neutrality and the identity of the receiver are the keys. And parochial school teachers providing religious instruction on a public school campus would violate the establishment clause. In that instance, the state, by supplying facilities, would be proactively aiding religion. In the previous example, the state was simply accommodating the student, who left campus to receive religious instruction.
Now in relation to prayer in public schools, which was banned by the Supreme Court in 1962, they argued that prayer in public schools fundamentally violated the establishment clause. First, government power was turned over to religion. The state, through compulsory education, provided a captive audience with religion. Even if nonbelievers were permitted to leave, the message was clear: Religion (Christianity) is the norm. Choosing not to participate, opened students to ridicule, ostracism, and scorn, all with the state's help. Second, religion transferred power to the state. The state composed the prayer based on its choice of faith, thus favoring one religion. Students not of the favored religion might be stigmatized and confused (Forrest and Gross, 2004). Since that ruling, some states, under cover of the free exercise clause, have attempted to reintroduce prayer in public schools, calling it "voluntary." Moreover, to permit prayer during class would be disruptive, divisive, and coercive and would violate the establishment clause by placing government imprimatur on religion. This is not to say public schools are prohibited from teaching about religion; they can educate students about the history of religion and may even teach about religious beliefs in the context of a comparative religion class (ACLU, 1995). The Supreme Court has managed, over time, to bring a semblance of order to the laws governing separation of church and state in education. Administrators and educators today have a clearer idea of that line of separation and how to adhere to it. Science classes, however, may only present genuine scientific theories and may not present religious theories about the beginning of humans. This is the second argument I use against the teaching of Intelligent Design within public schools. The theory of Intelligent Design is, at its’ core, a religious idea, that there is a God and that he has guided evolution, and natural selection is simply his means towards an end. The Judge John Jones case in Dover, finally, argued that ID was not science, that it was religion, and that as such could not be taught in a public school science class, but the argument continues, and districts still debate. Will they ever let Darwin rest in peace?

References

Brockman, J. (2006). Intelligent Thought: Science versus the Intelligent Design Movement. New York, NY: Vintage.
Gross, S. and Forrest, B. (2004). Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Gunther, G. (1991). Constitutional Law. Westbury, CT: Foundation Press.
Slack, G. (2007). The Battle Over the Theory of Everything: Evolution, Intelligent Design, and a School Board in Dover, PA. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Taylor, R., and Ferrari, M. (2011). Epistemology and Science Education: Understanding the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Controversy. New York, NY: Routledge.