If opposition to teaching evolution is religious and if defense of Intelligent Design is based upon the promotion of religious beliefs, then it’s inescapable that the Dover School Board’s decision to introduce Intelligent Design while denigrating evolution was an unconstitutional endorsement of particular religious beliefs. But that’s not all! As it turns out, Intelligent Design’s arguments are theological, not scientific.
During the trial, plaintiffs called John F. Haught, a retired professor of theology at Georgetown University, as a witness. He testified to what everyone already knew: the Intelligent Design argument is fundamentally indistinguishable from the traditional theological arguments for the existence of God:
-
[John Haught] traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. ... Dr. Haught testified that Aquinas was explicit that this intelligent designer “everyone understands to be God.” The syllogism described by Dr. Haught is essentially the same argument for ID as presented by defense expert witnesses Professors Behe and Minnich who employ the phrase “purposeful arrangement of parts.”
Most people are familiar with this argument in Plaey’s “watchmaker” formulation:
-
Dr. Haught testified that this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley and defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich admitted that their argument for ID based on the “purposeful arrangement of parts” is the same one that Paley made for design. ... The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID’s “official position” does not acknowledge that the designer is God.
However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God, as the description of the designer in Of Pandas and People ... is a “master intellect,” strongly suggesting a supernatural deity as opposed to any intelligent actor known to exist in the natural world.
Is it appropriate for science classes to present theological arguments as if they had scientific merit? No — that’s why Intelligent Design advocates avoid admitting they are talking about God in the first place, even though it’s clear to everyone that this is what they mean. There is no denying it and they can’t offer any alternatives:
-
Although proponents of the IDM occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, including Defendants’ expert witnesses. In fact, an explicit concession that the intelligent designer works outside the laws of nature and science and a direct reference to religion is Pandas’ rhetorical statement, “what kind of intelligent agent was it [the designer]” and answer: “On its own science cannot answer this question. It must leave it to religion and philosophy.”
That last quote may be one of the few reasonable and accurate statements in the whole book. Intelligent Design is the presentation of an idea which is up to religion and philosophy to debate and answer (if indeed an answer is possible). If discussion of Intelligent Design belongs anywhere in public schools, it would be classes on philosophy, religious studies, or perhaps modern cultural debates. It has no more place in science classes than discussion of Pascal’s Wager.
Why do Intelligent Design advocates want it taught in science class? Why wouldn’t it be sufficient for them to be taught in philosophy or religious studies classes? First, only in science classes would Intelligent Design be contrasted with evolution — and undermining evolution is the immediate goal. Long-term, the goal is to undermine naturalistic science generally. Neither of these goals can be achieved if Intelligent Design is presented as being outside of science.
Second, and related, is the idea that what is presented in science is “true.” Evolution, geology, astronomy, and so forth are all discussed in science classes and framed as objectively true. Philosophy and religious studies classes, however, are about questions and discussion — no one philosophy or religion can or would be framed as “true.”
If Intelligent Design appears in science class, its perceived status would rise by association with astronomy and geology. If it appears in philosophy or religion class, its association with them might lead to a lower perceived status and might even cause students to tend to dismiss it as a viable alternative to standard science. Advocates of Intelligent Design have tried to create a theological parasite of science — ironic, given how parasitism is an evolved phenomenon, not a designed one.
