Andrew Odell, "Teaching origins by design; Students should learn both evolution and intelligent design as part of a well-rounded education" (2005)

Andrew Odell, Special To The Sunday News

Recently, a York County school district required the reading of a statement in biology class before the unit on the origin of life stating that evolution is one theory on origin of life, and intelligent design is another.

This policy, believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, met with much public outcry. The most common objection to the policy (and to intelligent design) is that it is a religious theory.

This is a false accusation, and I argue that school districts should actually go one step farther than the Dover district and permit evolution and intelligent design to be taught side by side.

American public schools indoctrinate students in evolution, the theory that all life is the result of natural selection and random mutation. Because this is the only theory allowed by law to be taught, it may seem as if it is a fact. But is evolution a scientific fact?

A theory must be demonstrable, repeatable and observable. Clearly, the theory of evolution does not meet the requirements. To eliminate false impressions, public schools should allow teaching of alternate theories.

The theory of intelligent design, which holds that Darwinian evolution could not construct certain features of life and that these were created by an intelligent designer, is a legitimate scientific theory and should be taught. I believe it is the most significant, scientific, modern-day challenge to the Darwinian theory of evolution.

Certainly, it is only a theory, but teaching the two side by side will show that neither is established fact.

Real science

Is intelligent design a legitimate scientific theory? Yes. Intelligent design scientists argue that the evidences of design are empirically detectable.

In "The Design Inference," William Dembski, associate research professor at Baylor University and a leading intelligent design scientist, outlined a way in which design may be detected.

Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, the author of "Darwin's Black Box" and another leading intelligent design scientist, set forth the idea of irreducible complexity as evidence of design. A system that is irreducibly complex is, in Behe's words, "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

Irreducibly complex systems pose problems to evolution because they could not be formed in progressive steps. Every piece needs to be there from the beginning for the system to function.

Both men also point to other branches of science (including cryptology, archaeology, forensic science and the program Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, or SETI) that use certain criteria to distinguish designed objects from ordinary objects.

SETI attempts to detect radio and light waves in space that may signal the presence of extraterrestrial life. Behe points out that criteria have been established to distinguish possible signals sent by aliens from the general radio and light signals coming from space. If these sciences have established means to empirically detect design, why shouldn't biologists be able to detect design?

Interestingly, many evolutionists admit that life appears as if it were designed. The late Francis Crick, one of the discoverers of DNA's structure, wrote, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." Richard Dawkins wrote, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

A common claim is that intelligent design is a cloak for creationism. If this is true, then science can flatly reject intelligent design as an explanation for the origin of life because creationism involves the supernatural. However, intelligent design is not, by any means, a remaking of creationism. And it does not require that the intelligent designer be God.

Behe, in "Darwin's Black Box," writes, "The question of the identity of the designer will simply be ignored by science." He writes that under this theory, people could believe that aliens brought life to earth - as Crick believed.

But why should the public schools teach two theories? Couldn't they just stress the fact that evolution is a theory? Yes, they could, but the teaching of both is necessary for well-informed students and intellectual integrity. A debater knows the evidence that supports his position. But, by researching evidence supporting the opposition's position, the debater is much more prepared to refute their arguments.

It is the same with the debate over the origin of life.

Rather than indoctrinating students by only teaching evolution, the schools should educate their students and present both sides of the issue. This allows students to decide and then confidently defend what they believe.

Andrew Odell, of Providence Township, is a home-schooled student.

Copyright 2005 Lancaster Newspapers, Inc.
> SUNDAY NEWS (LANCASTER, PA.)<p>