Skip to main content

Should Intelligent Design be Taught in Public School Science Classrooms?

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Some could argue to the contrary that the legal debate over Intelligent Design has turned the science classroom into a public forum. Whether or not this is true, of course, turns upon what is meant by this expression, “public forum.” A public forum in the sense intended here is a community that can and moreover should decide, democratically, an accepted position on a question, where credentials for membership in that forum are a matter of either membership in citizenry or elected office. However true it may be that the ID-evolution debate has brought public attention to the question of what counts as science, this paper argues that it is neither the courts, nor the public, ultimately, but scientists who should determine in specific cases what count as legitimate scientific theory, based on the criteria discussed below. Thus, science is not a public forum in this sense. The legal context of debates over teaching ID in public schools concerns interpretation of the Establishment clause as well as the question of whether the teaching of ID constitutes promotion of religious views by the state. Recent legal decision has concluded that teaching ID constitutes a violation of the separation of church and state (Kitzmiller v. Dover 2005). (Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments on this issue.).

  2. 2.

    One reviewer notes that the account of science advanced here is very much in keeping with some contributors to McComas (1998). Another suggests that readers may find similar views in the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (2008). Many thanks for these useful references.

  3. 3.

    Of course, learning science is important in itself, both in terms of the content and learning the practice of critical thinking, whether or not one might use such science to compete for jobs.

  4. 4.

    It should be noted that these are argument types, not tokens. The aim of this paper is to reply to general kinds of argument, not to each specific argument of the variety of ID proponents, which would require (at the least) a book length manuscript. For an example of a comprehensive and thorough analysis of argument tokens, see Sarkar (2007).

  5. 5.

    That is, it does not follow from the fact that something seems difficult or impossible that it is. More detail on this point will be supplied below.

  6. 6.

    This point is mentioned in McComas (1998), as well as the National Academy of Sciences’ statement (2008).

  7. 7.

    For an excellent overview of some common assumptions about science and how they are misguided, see Woodward and Goodstein (1996).

  8. 8.

    This point is also canvassed in McComas (1998).

  9. 9.

    Though, some, (Popper) deny that even this is possible; Popper claimed that all we may claim is that a hypothesis has not yet been falsified.

  10. 10.

    See Friedmann (2004), for a discussion of the history of this notorious claim, never published; also, see also Zimmer (2008).

  11. 11.

    For a thorough review, see Futuyma (1998); or, a much shorter account, Charlesworth and Charlesworth 2003.

  12. 12.

    For further discussion, see, e.g., Millstein (2006).

  13. 13.

    Of course, one could legitimately argue that cooption is neo-Darwinian, insofar as Darwin himself makes reference to such mechanisms.

  14. 14.

    For reasons far too complex to go into here, there are difficulties with this notion of exaptation—very briefly, almost every biological trait is in some sense an exaptation, because it’s rarely the case that a trait is not in some sense (directly or indirectly) co-opted from another function, at some level of organization.

  15. 15.

    See Futuyma (1998, pp. 681–685), or a discussion of how the eye has evolved many times in the history of life.

  16. 16.

    This reconstruction follows that of Sober (2008). For much more detailed discussion of this argument and its problems, please see Sober’s excellent text.

  17. 17.

    A Gallup Poll conducted in 2008 showed that over 50% of Americans believe either that God created humans in their present form, or somehow guided human evolution (Gallup Poll, May 8–11, 2008b).

  18. 18.

    In response to the question, “Would you generally favor or oppose teaching creation along with evolution in public schools?” a majority was in favor (roughly 65%) but with respect to replacing evolution curriculum with creation curriculum, a majority was opposed (roughly 51%) (CBS News/New York Times Poll. Nov. 18–21, 2004. N = 885 adults nationwide.).

  19. 19.

    However, it does seem to be the conclusion of many cognitive and neuroscientists. See, for example Wegner (2002), and more recently, Hassin et al. (2006).

  20. 20.

    A wonderful example is Asa Gray. Some have also argued that there is a domain of faith versus a domain of empirical concern. Questions in the two domains, it is argued, are nonoverlapping—they are different kinds of questions that required different answers, and modes of argument. Gould called this the “two Magisteria” argument (1997).

  21. 21.

    See the Darwin Correspondence Project (2007).

  22. 22.

    See, e.g., Galileo, “Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina,” in Drake, ed. (1957).

  23. 23.

    An appendix following gives a list of useful websites for teaching controversial material, and evolution in particular, in the high school and college classroom. Of course, this is a very small sample of a much larger literature that could be surveyed here.

References

  1. Baker P, Slevin P (2005, August 3) Bush remarks on ‘intelligent design’ theory fuel debate. Washington Post

  2. Beatty J (1997) Why do biologists argue like they do? Philos Sci S64:231–242

    Google Scholar 

  3. Behe M (2006) Darwin’s black box: the biochemical challenge to evolution, 2nd edn. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bloom P, Weisberg DS (2007) Childhood origins of adult resistance to science. Science 316(5827):996–997. doi:10.1126/science.1133398

    Article  Google 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 87:181–206

    Google Scholar 

  6. Buller D (2005) Adapting minds: evolutionary psychology and the persistent quest for human nature. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  7. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (2003) Evolution: a very short introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cleland C (2001) Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method. Geol Geol Soc Am 29(11):987–990

    Google Scholar 

  9. Coyne J, Orr HA (2004) Speciation. Sinauer, Sunderland

  10. Dembski WH (2001) No free lunch: why specified complexity cannot be purchased without intelligence. Rowman and Littlefield, Inc, Lanham, Maryland

    Google Scholar 

  11. Darwin C (1838) Notebooks. In: Glick TF, Kohn G (eds) On evolution (1996). Hackett Publishing, Cambridge

  12. Darwin C (1871, 1890) The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. John Murray, London

  13. Darwin Correspondence Project, University of Cambridge (2007) http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/content/view/88/73/

  14. Dobzhansky T (1973) Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Am Biol Teach 35:125–129

    Google Scholar 

  15. Drake S (1957) Discoveries and opinions of Galileo. Doubleday Anchor Books. “Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina,” pp 173–216

  16. Duhem P (1954, 1982) The aim and structure of physical theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton

  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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Futuyma DL (1998) Evolutionary biology, 3rd edn. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland

  20. Galton F (1870) Hereditary genius: an inquiry into its laws and consequences. Appleton, NY

  21. Gould SJ (1997) Nonoverlapping magisteria. Nat Hist 106:16–22

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gould SJ, Vrba E (1982) Exaptation—a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology 8(1):4–15

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hassin R, Uleman J, Bargh J (2006) The new unconscious (social cognition and neuroscience). Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kelemen D, DiYanni C (2005) Intuitions about origins: purpose and intelligent design in children’s reasoning about nature. J Cogn Dev 6:3–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kitcher P (1982) Abusing science: the case against creationism. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kitcher P (2007) Living with Darwin: evolution, design, and the future of faith. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google 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)

  31. McComas FW (1998) The nature of science in science education: rationales and strategies. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. National Academy of Sciences (2008) Science, evolution, and creationism. The National Academic Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  34. Pew Research Center for People and the Press (2006) Many Americans uneasy with mix of religion and politics. http://people-press.org/report/287/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. http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm

  36. Polling Report, Inc. (2008b) Gallup Poll May 8–11 2008. http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm

  37. Popper K (1963) Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge, London

    Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Sarkar S (2007) Doubting Darwin? Creationist designs on evolution. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden

    Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Sober E (2008) Evidence and evolution: the logic behind the science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  42. Sober E, Wilson DS (1998) Unto others: the evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  43. Thagard P (1978) Inference to the best explanation. J Philos 75(2):76–92

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Wegner D (2002) The illusion of the conscious will. MIT press

  46. Woodward J, Goodstein D (1996) Conduct, misconduct and the structure of science. Am Sci 84:479–490

    Google Scholar 

  47. Zimmer C (2008) Microcosm: E. coli and the new science of life. Pantheon, New York

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anya Plutynski.

Appendix

Appendix

Some useful websites for teaching controversial topics

http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/affective/evolution.html (on teaching evolution)

http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/affective/sac_video.html (video of workshop on Structured Academic Controversies)

http://tep.uoregon.edu/resources/diversity/methods/methodscontroversialissues.html

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Plutynski, A. Should Intelligent Design be Taught in Public School Science Classrooms?. Sci & Educ 19, 779–795 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-008-9169-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Science Classroom
  • Intelligent Design
  • Behavioral Disposition
  • Public Forum
  • Common Descent