Science & Education

, Volume 19, Issue 6–8, pp 779–795 | Cite as

Should Intelligent Design be Taught in Public School Science Classrooms?

  • Anya PlutynskiEmail author


A variety of different arguments have been offered for teaching “both sides” of the evolution/ID debate in public schools. This article reviews five of the most common types of arguments advanced by proponents of Intelligent Design and demonstrates how and why they are founded on confusion and misunderstanding. It argues on behalf of teaching evolution, and relegating discussion of ID to philosophy or history courses.


Science Classroom Intelligent Design Behavioral Disposition Public Forum Common Descent 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Baker P, Slevin P (2005, August 3) Bush remarks on ‘intelligent design’ theory fuel debate. Washington PostGoogle Scholar
  2. Beatty J (1997) Why do biologists argue like they do? Philos Sci S64:231–242Google Scholar
  3. Behe M (2006) Darwin’s black box: the biochemical challenge to evolution, 2nd edn. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloom P, Weisberg DS (2007) Childhood origins of adult resistance to science. Science 316(5827):996–997. doi: 10.1126/science.1133398 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brem S, Ranney M, Schindel J (2002) Perceived consequences of evolution: college students perceive negative personal and social impact of evolutionary theory. Sci Educ 87:181–206Google Scholar
  6. Buller D (2005) Adapting minds: evolutionary psychology and the persistent quest for human nature. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (2003) Evolution: a very short introduction. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Cleland C (2001) Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method. Geol Geol Soc Am 29(11):987–990Google Scholar
  9. Coyne J, Orr HA (2004) Speciation. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  10. Dembski WH (2001) No free lunch: why specified complexity cannot be purchased without intelligence. Rowman and Littlefield, Inc, Lanham, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  11. Darwin C (1838) Notebooks. In: Glick TF, Kohn G (eds) On evolution (1996). Hackett Publishing, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Darwin C (1871, 1890) The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Darwin Correspondence Project, University of Cambridge (2007)
  14. Dobzhansky T (1973) Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Am Biol Teach 35:125–129Google Scholar
  15. Drake S (1957) Discoveries and opinions of Galileo. Doubleday Anchor Books. “Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina,” pp 173–216Google Scholar
  16. Duhem P (1954, 1982) The aim and structure of physical theory. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  17. Evans M (2001) Cognitive and contextual factors in the emergence of diverse belief systems: creation versus evolution. Cognit Psychol 42:217. doi: 10.1006/cogp.2001.0749 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Friedmann HC (2004) From butyribacterium to E. coli: an essay on unity in biochemistry. Perspect Biol Med 47(1):47–66. doi: 10.1353/pbm.2004.0007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Futuyma DL (1998) Evolutionary biology, 3rd edn. Sinauer Associates, Inc., SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  20. Galton F (1870) Hereditary genius: an inquiry into its laws and consequences. Appleton, NYGoogle Scholar
  21. Gould SJ (1997) Nonoverlapping magisteria. Nat Hist 106:16–22Google Scholar
  22. Gould SJ, Vrba E (1982) Exaptation—a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology 8(1):4–15Google Scholar
  23. Hassin R, Uleman J, Bargh J (2006) The new unconscious (social cognition and neuroscience). Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. Kelemen D (1999) The scope of teleological thinking in preschool children. Cognition 70:241–272. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00010-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kelemen D (2003) British and American children’s preferences for teleo-functional explanations of the natural world. Cognition 8:201–221. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00024-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kelemen D (2004) Are children “intuitive theists”? Reasoning about purpose and design in nature. Psychol Sci 15:295–301. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00672.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kelemen D, DiYanni C (2005) Intuitions about origins: purpose and intelligent design in children’s reasoning about nature. J Cogn Dev 6:3–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kitcher P (1982) Abusing science: the case against creationism. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Kitcher P (2007) Living with Darwin: evolution, design, and the future of faith. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, et al (2005) United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005)Google Scholar
  31. McComas FW (1998) The nature of science in science education: rationales and strategies. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  32. Millstein RL (2006) Natural selection as a population-level causal process. Br J Philos Sci 57(4):627–653. doi: 10.1093/bjps/axl025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. National Academy of Sciences (2008) Science, evolution, and creationism. The National Academic Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  34. Pew Research Center for People and the Press (2006) Many Americans uneasy with mix of religion and politics.
  35. Polling Report, Inc. (2008a) CBS News/New York Times Poll Nov. 18–21, 2004. N = 885 adults nationwide.
  36. Polling Report, Inc. (2008b) Gallup Poll May 8–11 2008.
  37. Popper K (1963) Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. Rice WR, Hostert EE (1993) Laboratory experiments in speciation: what have we learned in 40 years? Evolution 47:1637–1653. doi: 10.2307/2410209 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sarkar S (2007) Doubting Darwin? Creationist designs on evolution. Wiley-Blackwell, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  40. Shtulman A (2006) Qualitative differences between naïve and scientific theories of evolution. Cognit Psychol 52:170. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sober E (2008) Evidence and evolution: the logic behind the science. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  42. Sober E, Wilson DS (1998) Unto others: the evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Thagard P (1978) Inference to the best explanation. J Philos 75(2):76–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thornhill RH, Ussery DW (2000) A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution. J Theor Biol 203(2):111–116. doi: 10.1006/jtbi.2000.1070 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wegner D (2002) The illusion of the conscious will. MIT pressGoogle Scholar
  46. Woodward J, Goodstein D (1996) Conduct, misconduct and the structure of science. Am Sci 84:479–490Google Scholar
  47. Zimmer C (2008) Microcosm: E. coli and the new science of life. Pantheon, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations