Intelligent Design in the Classroom: A Darwinian Approach



INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN THE CLASSROOM:

A DARWINIAN APPROACH

© Joshua Warren 2003

Professor Hamilton

Drummond

…Darwin moved us forward to a hilltop, where we could look back and see the way from which we came. But for this view, this insight, this knowledge, we must abandon our faith in the pleasant poetry of Genesis.

Brady

We must not abandon faith! Faith is the important thing!

Drummond

Then why did God plague us with the power to think? Mr. Brady, why do you deny the one faculty which lifts man above all other creature on the earth: the power of his brain to reason. What other merit have we?...

Excerpted from Inherit the Wind[1]

I. Introduction

Evolutionary theory directly conflicts with Judeo-Christian dogma. How can we reconcile this conflict and coherently present it in secular public schools? Creation-science has long been removed from science curriculums[2] but the burgeoning field of intelligent design is making headway in American curriculums[3]. Should intelligent design survive constitutional challenge?

To analyze this issue I have broken the subject into the categories typically used to label Darwinian theory.[4] It is my hope that this demonstrates the usefulness of in the Darwinian model to critical thinking and why it must be stressed in public schools.

II. Overpopulation of ideas (or what people think)

In nature, there are limited resources. As populations increase in size individuals compete for these resources.[5] The same is true in the realm of idea. When two philosophies attempt to answer the same question they will begin to compete to persuade human minds. Science and religion both attempt to answer the question of the meaning of life and so, conflict occurs. The most important battlefield is the public classroom where human minds are held captive. This section describes the overpopulation of thought by giving a brief overview of the tenets of the three major philosophies currently at the forefront of modern American curriculum debate.[6]

A. Creationism & Creation-Science

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.”[7] “Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.”[8]

There is no way to reconcile these beliefs with evolutionary dogma.[9] Despite the deceptive name this is patently NOT science.[10] Science implies an adherence to the scientific method.[11] Christian Science starts with a basic premise -- God exists -- and bases everything else on that concept. There is no attempt to base this premise on any observed fact and new observations are read to preserve the basic premise. It looks like science and speaks like science but this is NOT science because its conclusion is that what cannot be explained must be God. Such a conclusion assumes, without proof, the existence of God and is therefore NOT science. Arguments in favor of teaching creationism come strictly from a religious freedom perspective and have not been successful since 1987.[12]

B. Darwinian & Modern Evolutionary Theory.

Webster’s defines biological evolution as “a general name for the history of the steps by which any living organism has acquired the morphological and physiological characters which distinguish it; a gradual unfolding of successive phases of growth or development.”[13] “In recent bickering, however, evolution has been understood to mean the theory which holds that man has developed from some pre-existing lower type.”[14]

Like any scientific theory it cannot (yet) be proven.[15] Thus it runs afoul of creationists who argue that belief in evolution requires just as much faith as belief in creation.[16] The difference between evolutionary theory and creation science is that evolution is based on the scientific method.[17] Hypotheses are made and tested and revised based on observations.[18] What cannot be observed is not included and what cannot be supported by observation is discarded.[19] There is no question that Darwin’s original theory as outlined in his Origin of the Species[20] has numerous flaws and that while many of these problems of evolution have been solved, many still remain.[21] But these holes continue to be studied using scientific principles and the scientific community continues to get closer to a truth.[22]

Flawed as it is, evolution has become a major paradigm in scientific thought largely because of “its utility in directing research and explaining observations within a particular field of study.”[23] The model of evolution closely matches the scientific method and is a useful tool to teach and understand science. This led renowned biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky to say “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”[24]

The National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) endorses this view in its list of tenets of biology education which demonstrates the inextricable link of science and evolution. The following are the pertinent parts of the list [emphasis added]: [25]

- In science, a theory is not a guess or an approximation but an extensive explanation developed from well-documented, reproducible sets of experimentally-derived data from repeated observations of natural processes.

- The models and the subsequent outcomes of a scientific theory are not decided in advance, but can be, and often are, modified and improved as new empirical evidence is uncovered. Thus, science is a constantly self-correcting endeavor to understand nature and natural phenomena

- Science is not teleological: the accepted processes do not start with a conclusion, then refuse to change it, or acknowledge as valid only those data that support an unyielding conclusion. Science does not base theories on an untestable collection of dogmatic proposals. Instead, the processes of science are characterized by asking questions, proposing hypotheses, and designing empirical models and conceptual frameworks for research about natural events.

- Students can maintain their religious beliefs and learn the scientific foundations of evolution.

- Science and religion differ in significant ways that make it inappropriate to teach any of the different religious beliefs in the science classroom.

C. Intelligent Design

Intelligent design (ID) theorists disagree with the NABT list. They agree with the first two points but believe that God can be proven through experimentally-derived data and that the next self-correcting endeavor should be to acknowledge His existence. ID theorists believe that human life systems are so complex that they could not possibly have developed without external planning.[26] ID does not require belief in God per se but simply in some architectural force (for example the Raellian movement which believes in extraterrestrial seeding is an intelligent design advocate).[27] ID proponents argue that it is evolutionists who are basing their theory on an untestable collection of dogmatic proposals. Leading ID-thinker Michael Behe argues that strict adherence to the dogma of creation by randomness has led science to ignore the elephant in the room.[28]

Pro-evolutionists see ID as just the latest attempt at creation science.[29] They see intelligent design as religious thought shielding itself in scientific language.[30] But ID proponents claim that observations can prove design and that continued observations can be made that are consistent with design.[31] Thus they claim ID complies with the scientific method and that withholding their theories from the curriculum amounts to viewpoint discrimination.[32]

One ID lobbying group, the Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC), has developed a strategy for competing with evolution called “the wedge”.[33] While they have failed to win support in the scientific community and to date no intelligent design theories have been published in respectable peer reviewed journals, they have made substantial headway in the court of public opinion owing largely to eloquent and easy-to-read books on the subject. [34]

But, intelligent design is still NOT science because scientists do not accept the observation of irreducible complexity as an observation primarily because it does nothing to further scientific pursuit.[35] As expected, the issue ultimately rests on whether one believes in God. And so they have made their way to court.

III. Competition (or how these philosophies have butt heads in American courts)

The first major legal battle was fought in Tennessee in 1927. The ACLU placed an ad seeking a school teacher to help them challenge the state’s Anti-Evolution Act.[36] The act proscribed criminal penalties in the form of a fine to anyone who is “to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.”[37] A substitute teacher named John Scopes agreed. Renowned defense counsel, Clarence Darrow, got involved against the wishes of the ACLU and soon it became the “trial of the century,” pitting evolution against religion in a court battle filled with theatrics.[38] In the end, Scopes lost his trial but won his appeal on a technicality.[39] Thus, much to the dismay of the ACLU, the case failed to turn it into a national test case.

Forty years later, in 1968, the Supreme Court got its chance to invalidate a statute imposing criminal liabilities on the teaching of evolution in Epperson v. Arkansas[40]. Justice Stewart’s concurrence said, “States are most assuredly free ‘to choose their own curriculums for their own schools.’ A State is entirely free, for example, to decide that the only foreign language to be taught in its public school system shall be Spanish. But would a State be constitutionally free to punish a teacher for letting his students know that other languages are also spoken in the world? I think not.”[41] Here, the court was urged to strike the statute for vagueness as it was difficult to determine if one could not teach evolution at all or just not teach that evolution was true.[42] But instead, the court held that removing evolution from the curriculum was a violation of the first amendment.[43]

Christian lobbying groups struggled to uphold creationism as the courts mandated evolutionary instruction. In 1982, the Arkansas court revisited their educational policy to strike down its balanced treatment law[44] requiring the teaching of creation alongside evolution.[45] And five years later, the US Supreme Court followed suit, in Edwards v. Aguillard, invalidating a very similar Louisiana equal treatment statute.[46]

Phillip Johnson argues that “[T]he majority opinion in Edwards said that the state was not only permitted to exclude the creationist viewpoint, but was required to do so -- and not because belief in a supernatural creator was necessarily false or irrational, but precisely because it was religious. The logic implies that creationist arguments must be excluded regardless of their merits, and that students may hear only the naturalistic viewpoint on the subject of origins.”[47]

The Edwards court applied the now well established (though highly criticized) Lemon test first developed in Lemon v. Kurtzman.[48] To survive the three part test, the government conduct in question (1) must have a secular purpose, (2) must have a principal or primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and (3) must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.[49]

Most recently, the Supreme Court denied certiorari on a case involving a disclaimer to be read before teaching evolution.[50] Thus they upheld the Lemon test and the principle of the lower court’s decision that such a disclaimer is unconstitutional. The policy challenged in Freiler stated: [51]

Whenever, in classes of elementary or high school, the scientific theory of evolution is to be presented, whether from textbook, workbook, pamphlet, other written material, or oral presentation, the following statement shall be quoted immediately before the unit of study begins as a disclaimer from endorsement of such theory.

It is hereby recognized by the Tangipahoa Board of Education, that the lesson to be presented, regarding the origin of life and matter, is known as the Scientific Theory of Evolution and should be presented o inform students of the scientific concept and not intended to influence or dissuade the Biblical version of Creation or any other concept

It is further recognized by the Board of Education that it is the basic right and privilege of each student to form his/her own opinion and maintain beliefs taught by parents on this very important matter of the origin of life and matter. Students are urged to exercise critical thinking  and gather all information possible and closely examine each alternative toward forming an opinion. [emphasis added]

As in the precedence, the district court applied the Lemon test and found that the disclaimer failed the first prong of the test finding that the secular purposes presented by the school board were a sham.[52] The appellate court found that the disclaimer survived the first prong under a deferential standard. But they applied a stricter standard for the latter two prongs and held that the disclaimer failed both.[53] A notable issue with the disclaimer was that it explicitly mentioned the Bible as an alternative theory.[54]

The Supreme Court overlooked this opportunity to clarify their establishment clause jurisprudence. Justice Scalia dissented to the denial of cert. arguing that this was a perfect opportunity to abolish Lemon once and for all.[55] However this view was not supported by his brethren. And so, Lemon remains the test of choice for upcoming challenges.

As a final twist, a recent attempt was made to sneak creation science into the classroom by way of the teacher’s first amendment rights.[56] The teacher, Rodney Levake, brought an action against the school district for reassigning him out of his Biology class when he refused to teach evolution without teaching the criticisms. Levake’s claim was based on grounds that it violated his free exercise of religion, free speech and due process. The court granted the school summary judgment on all three grounds premising the holding on placing ultimate curriculum control in the hands of the school and not the teacher. [57]

Undaunted, ID advocates still work to educate teachers so that they can bring their ideology to the forefront.[58] Concurrently, intelligent designers continue to lobby legislatures and create new challenges for the court system.[59]

IV. Variation & Adaptation (or what is brewing around the country)

In 2001, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed an amendment to their Better Education For Students and Teachers Act that focused on deemphasizing evolution in the name of critical thinking:[60]

It is the sense of the Senate that (1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and (2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject. [emphasis added]

Intelligent design proponents were active in lobbying for this amendment.[61] The resolution was incorporated into the Conference Reports of the final bill and signed into law by President Bush on January 8th, 2002 as H.R. 1 the "No Child Left Behind Act.” The resolution was incorporated as: [62]

The Conferees recognize that a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from the religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society. [emphasis added]

In response to this Act, the Board of Education in West Virginia enacted new statewide curriculum standards.[63] An ID lobbying group, the Intelligent Design Network (IDNet) was active in lobbying to have these standards conform to their views.[64] They had a few nominal successes but overall the curriculum still reflects majoritarian scientific views.[65]

IDNet was successful in lobbying to remove “implications that human beings are living objects.”[66] The revised version instead requires students to classify between living and non-living thus avoiding the religious objection to the word “object” (as opposed to “phenomenon” or other less secular wording).[67]

IDNet was unsuccessful at efforts to remove mention of evolution from 3rd through 8th grades.[68] Their argument being that these children are too young to assess the situation with the critical thinking skills necessary to comprehend it.[69] Of course that argument also cuts the other way as it would give creationists more time to indoctrinate young minds before fair presentation of science is attained.

Finally, IDNet lobbied to include criticisms of the naturalist methodology and alternative theories in West Virginian schools.[70] These suggestions are completely unreflected in the new curriculum.[71] It is likely these suggestions were not incorporated because as worded they would be unconstitutional. IDNet hoped to include language that directly attacked the atheistic undertone of evolutionary theory by labeling it a biased assumption. It suggested that students “understand the effect of this bias or assumption on the choice of data considered, the interpretation of data that is considered, and the credibility of explanation that are provided (emphasis added).”[72] The argument is that evolution presupposes an assumption antithetical to God and that like any other scientific assumption it should be explicitly presented. But, this phrasing (specifically the words “choice of data” and “credibility”) is a blatant religiously motivated effort to undermine emphasis on proper scientific method and should not survive Lemon. The standards suggested by IDNet patently advance religion.[73]

Meanwhile in 2002, the Cobb County Board of Education, in Georgia, passed its new policy on the teaching evolution:[74]

It is the educational philosophy of the Cobb County School District to provide a broad based curriculum; therefore, the Cobb County School District believes that discussion of disputed views of academic subjects is a necessary element of providing a balanced education, including the study of the origin of the species. This subject remains an area of intense interest, research and discussion among scholars. As a result, the study of this subject shall be handled in accordance with this policy and with objectivity and good judgment on the part of teachers, taking into account the age and maturity level of their students.

The purpose of this policy is to foster critical thinking among students, to allow academic freedom consistent with legal requirements, to promote tolerance and acceptance of diversity of opinion, and to ensure a posture of neutrality toward religion.  It is the intent of the Cobb County Board of Education that this policy not be interpreted to restrict the teaching of evolution; to promote or require the teaching of creationism; or to discriminate for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, religion in general or non-religion.

In a letter from the Cobb County High School Science Supervisor, George Stickel, to his teaching staff, he made clear that evolution would still be taught with the same veracity of the past:[75]

…Because evolution is the comprehensive structural framework upon which the biological sciences organize data, and about which those sciences plan research and anticipate results, it is imperative that our students understand evolution and its importance to the field of biology. Such understanding does not negate any belief in a divine process or intervention. Nor does it mean that a more comprehensive scientific theory could not supercede evolution at some future time. Because our job includes preparation of students and engaging them in the process of science, however, it behooves us to ensure that our students have a solid understanding of evolution as a theory of origin…

Stickel stressed that the new regulation “affirms the professionalism of teachers, resting upon the notion that the teacher, both as scientist and educator, is the best judge and the best facilitator for orchestrating what happens within each classroom.”[76] In a separate letter he made clear that teachers were not to teach “creationism (or any faith-based theories of origins)” yet they must be respectful “of alternative views among students” and create “an atmosphere of that same respect between students.”[77]

The Ohio state school board recently approved standards that allow individual local school districts to decide whether to include intelligent design theory but as of yet no Ohio school board has passed new standards.[78] Critical thinking based curriculums similar to that of Cobb County are likely to begin to emerge in Ohio.

The trend of these new legislative efforts is to introduce creationist arguments in the name of critical thinking skills. The new legislation in Cobb County is particularly well suited to avoid the constitutional pitfalls of its predecessors. The question presented is, can it survive Lemon?

V. Natural Selection (or how Cobb will fair in court)

The Cobb County policy will survive constitutional challenge under the Lemon test. Critical thinking is a clear secular purpose. The more complicated issue is whether it advances religion. On its face it does not. Then again the Freiler court found advancement regardless of the facial religious neutrality. The last 75 years have been very pro-evolution. In fact, one might argue that evolution has become so engrained in the public school system that any legislation that weakens evolution is inherently a win for religion and thus unconstitutionally advances it. However such a stance would seem overbroad and would lend credence to those who argue that evolutionary theory is dogmatic and that teaching it amounts to the establishment of secular humanism in our schools.[79]

The final Lemon hurdle is an interesting one. Is this too much state-religion entanglement? I don’t think it is. Evolution is inherently entangled with religion. There is no avoiding that. The courts have already said teaching evolution is ok. To say we can’t talk about the flaws because it implies religion strengthens Johnson’s viewpoint discrimination argument. Allowing such discussion obviously creates government entanglement in a religious issue. But it is unavoidable and so it should not be considered excessive entanglement.

Assuming it survives, then what?

VI. Speciation (or what’s next)

First off, creationists will be satisfied with the Cobb County policy as a model. Yes it is headway but it doesn’t go nearly far enough towards achieving their goal. In fact, from reading the Stickel letters it seems that the school district will only be paying lip service to the new policy. Until a teacher attempts to go beyond the scope of Stickel’s conceptions the issue really isn’t ripe. No doubt groups like the CRSC and IDNet are actively seeking such teachers. It will become imperative on administrators to monitor their teachers and control the curriculum under the Levake precedence.[80]

The real question is can this critical thinking idea work in a secondary school environment. Robert Pennock says no.[81] He argues that deep understanding of the information and high level processing skills are needed to critical think evolution and that this is simply unavailable to a high school classroom.[82] So it appears that Cobb has created a policy that is constitutional but impossible. As such it is a hollow victory for intelligent design.

An interesting twist will arise when a student brings creation science into the classroom as part of class discussion. The teacher will be forced to enter the debate if only to facilitate. Stickel reminds his teachers that such a discussion will need to be “critical and balanced.”[83] Will they be forced to stop the student if he were to contradict evolution with strong intelligent design arguments (perhaps learned from a Wedge tutorial)? If not wouldn’t that violate Edwards? The school has opened this subject for debate and critical thinking. If they chill the student’s speech would that then amount to viewpoint discrimination and a violation of the student’s first amendment right?

Courts have been reluctant to extend full first amendment protections to students, considering schools semi-public areas and in a number of situations have allowed schools to censor.[84] Under the court’s reasoning, schools would be able to censor religious speech with time, place, and manner restrictions to prevent disturbance of the legitimate school activity.[85] In fact, they would have to in order to avoid the implications of Edwards. It would also help to establish the guidelines for the conversation with the students beforehand so as to maintain the nonpublic aspects of the school community.[86]

This again increases the responsibilities of teachers. We can only hope that Stickel’s faith in his teaching staff is well deserved. Given the current shortage of qualified teachers, I find it hard to believe that the pool of science teachers is qualified to tease out such subtle constitutional issues. As a former teacher I relish the autonomy given to these professionals but as a budding constitutional scholar I fear giving them so much control.

VII. Conclusion

As Stickel points out, it is imperative that we teach evolution as the leading theory. The framework of evolution is important for how American society conceives itself. “Survival of the fittest” was coined not by Darwin but by social philosopher Herbert Spencer as a justification for wealth stratification.[87] Competition and winning by diversity is the American way. Yet in the ultimate contradiction, 44% of Americans believe God created man.[88] Therefore the battle over the origin of life is unsettled in the classroom because it is unsettled in American minds.

Pennock is right. Creation should not be taught in the classroom. God is not appropriately placed in a scientific discussion because it is an end and not a means. Stress that evolution is a theory. Explain the holes in the theory. But make clear that it’s the best theory science has. And even where constitutional, the name of God should not be invoked in a science classroom.

…since the order of the world is shaped by death, mightn’t it be better for God if we refuse to believe in Him and struggle with all our might against death, without raising our eyes toward the heaven where He sits in silence.

Excerpted from The Plague[89]

-----------------------

[1] Jerome Lawrence & Robert E. Lee, Inherit the Wind 83 (Bantam Books 1960) (1955)

[2] Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)

[3] Senate Approves ESEA Amendment Regarding Evolution., FYI., Number 81: June 28, 2001 available at

[4] The title headings are taken directly from a New York State approved high school Biology text as: Overproduction, Competition, Variation, Adaptation, Natural Selection and Speciation. William D. Schraer & Herbet J. Stoltze., Biology: The Study of Life 602 (4th ed. 1991)

[5] “Competition arises when the niches of two species overlap. The greater the overlap – the more requirements the two species have in common – the more intense the competition.” Id. at 826.

[6] Obviously, there are numerous other beliefs (religious or otherwise) regarding the origin of life on Earth. Undoubtedly as globalization, diversification, and immigration continue, additional alternative theories will vie for inclusion, but to date this fight is predominately Judeo-Christian. See generally, Robert T. Pennock, Why Creationism Should Not Be Taught in the Public Schools, in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives 755 (Robert T. Pennock ed., 2001).

[7] Genesis 1:1-5 (New International Version) available at

[8] Genesis 2:1 (New International Version) available at

[9] A simple example of this irreconcilability is the timeline of Genesis. The Earth is far more than 6000 years old (likely it is 4.5 billion years old). See Alvin Plantinga, When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible, 21 Christian Scholar Rev. 8 (1991) reprinted in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics supra note 6, at 113. (describing this and other factual conflicts and how theologians wrestle with them).

[10] See Nancey Murphy, Phillip Johnson on Trial: A Critique of His Critique of Darwin, 45 Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith 26 (1993), reprinted in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, supra note 6, at 451.

[11] Id. at 452 (paraphrasing Francis Bacon “scientists must first rid their minds of all prejudice and preconceptions, then collect all the facts relevant to the issue at hand, and finally draw inductive inferences from the facts.”).

[12] Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987).

[13] See Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (1998) at

[14] Scopes v. State, 154 Tenn. 105, 109 (1927).

[15] In contrast to a scientific law which is provable as always true, a scientific theory merely “applies to a broad range of phenomena” and is “supported by experimental evidence.” See Schraer & Stoltze, supra note 4, at 17.

[16] See Phillip E. Johnson, Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism, 6 First Things 15 (1990), reprinted in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, supra note 6, at 59.

[17] See generally, Murphy supra note 10, at 457 (describing the scientific method as applicable to these philosophies).

[18] Id. at 453.

[19] Id.

[20] Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species (Greg Suriano ed., Grammercy 1998) (1859)

[21] See Stephen Jay Gould, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (Belknap Press 2002); See also, Carl Zimmer, et al; Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea (HarperCollins 2001).

[22] Creationists argue that statement is FALSE. They say that scientists may hope to “get closer” but that they never will, because they can’t, because evolution is wrong. This of course requires an assumption that God exists. It’s a lovely semantic argument. See Phillip E. Johnson, Response to Pennock, 11 Biology & Philosophy 561 (1996), reprinted in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, supra note 6, at 99.

[23] See generally, Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962).

[24] Theodosius Dobzhansky, Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution, 35 The American Biology Teacher, 125 (March 1973) reprinted at (“Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole.”)

[25] National Association of Biology Teachers, Statement on Teaching Evolution, available at

[26] Michael Behe uses the analogy of a simple mousetrap. The trap is “irreducibly complex” because no part can be removed leaving a functional device. Therefore he says that one can scientifically conclude from this “observation” that the mousetrap was designed. Michael J. Behe, Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for Design Inference, 1 Cosmic Pursuit 27 (1998), reprinted in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, supra note 6, at 99. See also, Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution 43 (Simon & Schuster 1996). Behe calculates the odds of the randomly creating the gene sequence for blood clot cascade at 1:810,000,000,000,000,000. Id. at 94.

[27] Pennock, supra note 6, at 761.

[28] Behe claims that the denial of God is tantamount to investigators at the crime scene of a flattened body ignoring the elephant in the room as they focus on getting their man. See Behe, supra note 26, at 253.

[29] See Philip Kitcher, Born-Again Creationism, in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, supra note 6, at 257. See also Murphy, supra note 10.

[30] Id.

[31] Behe, supra note 26; William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design (InterVarsity Press 1999); Phillip E. Johnson, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds (InterVarsity Press 1997).

[32] Pennock, supra note 6, at 768 (attributing the idea to Phillip Johnson).

[33] The Wedge, originally conceived by Phillip E. Johnson, is a three phase plan designed to create design inference research, change opinions through publicity, and confront and change cultural institutions. Barbara Forrest, The Wedge at Work: How Intelligent Design Creationism is Wedging its Way into the Cultural Academic Mainstream, in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, supra note 6, at 5.

[34] See Id. See also supra note 31.

[35] Kenneth R. Miller, Answering the Biochemical Argument from Design, in God and Design (Neil Manson ed.,. Routledge Press forthcoming 2003), available at

[36] Edward J. Larson, Essay: The Scopes Trial and the Evolving Concept of Freedom, 85 Va. L. Rev. 503 (1999).

[37] Chapter 27 of the Acts of 1925, known as the Tennessee Anti-evolution Act, available at

[38] Most notably Darrow calling prosecuting attorney William Jennings Bryan to the stand as an expert in the Bible. Larson, supra note 36.

[39] Id.

[40] Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968)

[41] Id. at 115.

[42] Id. at 103.

[43] Id.

[44] Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act (Act), Ark. Stat. Ann. § 80-1663 et seq. (1981).

[45] McLean v. Arkansas Board of Ed., 529 F. Supp. 1255 (1982).

[46] Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987).

[47] Phillip E. Johnson, Essay: Is God Unconstitutional?, 66 U. Colo. L. Rev. 461, 468. He continues saying, “If a high school curriculum incorporates the subject of biological origins, and if supernatural creation is a rational alternative to naturalistic evolution within that subject, then it is bad educational policy as well as viewpoint discrimination to try to keep students ignorant of an alternative that may be true.” Id.

[48] See Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987).

[49] Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).

[50] Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Bd. of Educ., 185 F.3d 337 (5th. 1999), cert denied 530 U.S. 1251 (2000).

[51] Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Bd. of Educ., 185 F.3d 337, 341 (5th. 1999)

[52] Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Bd. of Educ., 530 U.S 1251, 1252 (2000) (Scalia, J., dissenting)

[53] Id.

[54] Id.

[55] Id. at 1253.

[56] Levake v. Ind. Sch. Dist. #656., 625 N.W.2d 502 (2001).

[57] Id. at 510

[58] Forrest, supra note 33, at 27.

[59] See Intelligent Design Network Homepage, available at

[60] Supra note 3.

[61] Id.

[62] See

[63] Policy 2520: Content Standards and Objectives for West Virginia Schools, available at (The foreword says, “Primary issues that have been addressed in the current revision work are building a rigorous and challenging curriculum, ensuring a curriculum that is accessible to every student, and designing a format that can easily be used and understood.”)

[64] See Summary of Suggestions and Implementing Recommendations for West Virginia SCIENCE – POLICY 2520.3, January 6, 2003, available at

[65] Policy 2520, supra note 63.

[66] See supra note 64.

[67] See Id. See also Policy 2520, supra note 63. (“SC1.4.1 classify objects as living or non-living.”).

[68] See supra note 64.

[69] See Id.

[70] Id.

[71] Policy 2520, supra note 63.

[72] Id.

[73] See supra note 64.

[74] Ga. school board OKs alternatives to evolution, CNN, Sep. 26, 2002, available at:

[75] Letter from George Stickel, Cobb County High School Science Supervisor, to his teaching staff, (Jan. 12, 2003) (on file with author).

[76] Id.

[77] Letter from George Stickel, Cobb County High School Science Supervisor, to his teaching staff, (Sept. 27, 2002) (on file with author). On Jan. 8, 2003, Cobb County amended its policy to include slightly more specifics about how to maneuver this dangerous topic. The theme of focusing on scientific method while respecting other views remains the same. This policy amendment is available at

[78] Ohio standards emphasize both evolution, theories, CNN, Oct. 16, 2002, available at

[79] The courts have never accepted this argument but that doesn’t stop the arguments. See Michael R. O'Neill, Government's Denigration of Religion: Is God the Victim of Discrimination in Our Public Schools?, 21 Pepp. L. Rev. 478 (1994).

[80] Levake v. Ind. Sch. Dist. #656., 625 N.W.2d 502 (2001).

[81] Pennock, supra note 6.

[82] Id. at 774.

[83] Letter, supra note 77.

[84] See Daniel Washburn, Comment: Student-Initiated Religious Speech in Public Schools, 39 Washburn L.J. 273 (2000).

[85] See Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969)

[86] See Id.

[87] Herbert Spencer, in People & Events: Andrew Carnegie, PBS, available at

[88] Kenneth Chang, Evolutionary Beliefs, ABCNEWS, “In a November 1997 poll by the Gallup Organization that quizzed people about their views on the origin of humans, 44 percent agreed with the statement, “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.” And that 68% of Americans think that creationism should be taught along with evolution in public schools. Only 10% believed that evolution occurred without god’s help.” available at (citing The Gallup Organization)

[89] Albert Camus, The Plague 117 (Random House 1947).

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download