Of Pandas, People, and Previous Court Decisions
Can someone explain to me, please, how intelligent design is different than creationism?
The theory of intelligent design posits that living things in our world are so complex and amazing that they had to be the product of the design of a creator – one of the supernatural variety. That sounds like creationism to me, or what was once called “creation science.” I’m not sure what this latter term actually means other than a way to try to sneak religion into public school systems.
I have no problem with creationism and I have no problem with people who believe that Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a bunch of bunk and that the Book of Genesis is the only way to go in terms of how we (and other living creatures) arrived on this planet. Heck, in my personal moral life, I like to believe in a little intelligent design myself. It’s my prerogative, after all. My personal morality also allows for both evolution and a little intelligent design, and that’s just fine by me. I just don’t try to take my personal morality to the local public school and try to insert my faith or spirituality into science curricula.
I attended Catholic school where Biblical studies and biological studies were taught side by side in different classrooms by different teachers, never mutually exclusive. Though my biology teacher was a Roman Catholic, we didn’t discuss creationism in her classroom. It simply wasn’t her place. And a public school is never the place. I just don’t understand how all of this is going to court again.
In Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a law requiring that creationism be taught alongside evolution was unconstitutional, violating the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution (”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”) because such teaching would be promoting a specific religion. They did, however, state that, “teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.” I’m sure that this statement is the justification for this new go-around in Pennsylvania, the one caused by a school board’s rule that all science teachers must read a statement acknowledging “alternate” theories of human origin, including intelligent design, before teaching evolution.
I’m sure that changing the name from “creationism” to “intelligent design” has done little to alter the premise that a supernatural planner orchestrated our existence. What I’m not sure about is why enough people looked over this fact and allowed it to make it to court – same Constitution, same Establishment Clause. I’m not sure about how replacing the term “creation science” with “intelligent design” somehow changes the constitutionality of the science lessons or textbook selections.
Creationism, whether you want to call it a “science” or not, might be taught in a Christian school but has no place in our public school systems. Religious conservatives, when speaking about sex education, are quick to point out that issues of morality and faith are best taught in the home rather than the classroom. I suggest we take them up on this offer.