Intel design theory debated

Is “intelligent design” theory just old-fashioned creationism dressed up as science or is it a legitimate scientific challenge to Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theories?
   
That is the question facing the Ohio state school board.
   
Board members will vote this fall on whether to allow 10th grade high school teachers to tell students about the intelligent design theory. If Ohio OK’s intelligent design, the matter could be up for debate in other states, reigniting the battle between evolutionists and creationists.
   
Intelligent design proponents want Ohio’s high science school teachers to be allowed to tell students about what they say is a scientific debate concerning alleged flaws in Darwinian theory.
   
They claim Darwin’s evolutionary theories cannot explain the complexity in all the Earth’s biological systems. Intelligent design theory holds that some natural systems are too complex to have randomly evolved into their current form and that there is an intelligent designer at work.
   
But intelligent design theorists are quick to point out that they do not necessarily call that “intelligent designer” God. They do not tie their theory to any sacred text, or the creation account in Genesis, but intelligent design theory includes some kind of divine spark.
   
“I do think God is real and created the universe, but I don’t know how,” says Jonathan Wells, author of “Icons of Evolution.” In his book, Wells challenges some of Darwin’s theories about natural selection and random mutation. He claims there are structures and natural systems that defy Darwin.
   
Take for example flagellar motors, the mechanism that powers the flagellum, a tail-like structure that moves bacteria through water. Intelligent design proponents claim the motor has so many parts, and is so complex, that it could not work unless all the pieces are assembled in their proper places, all at the same time. That, they say, does not allow for a slow evolutionary process, and makes room for some kind of unknown designer.
   
“Scientists require that we focus all our attention on this physical world; well, I think this physical world is only part of the story,” Wells said. “Students are often told that this physical world is all there is.”
Wells, who holds a doctorate in theology from Yale and a second Ph.D. in molecular biology from Berkeley, is one of the leaders of the intelligent design movement. He spoke to the Ohio school board in March about the controversy between intelligent design and evolution.
   
He and other scientists, mostly from the Discovery Institute in Seattle, are not asking that intelligent design be given equal time in classrooms, or even that teachers be required to teach it. They say they are asking that teachers simply be allowed to tell students about what they call flaws in Darwinian theory.
   
Intelligent design proponents say teachers who tell classes about the theory are often censored, punished or reassigned by school boards that want to avoid any controversy over the issue. “Are you even going to censor criticisms of Darwinian theory? There is this idea that you teach Darwin, only Darwin and nothing but Darwin,” said the Discovery Institute’s Mark Edwards.
   
Evolutionists vow to stop teachers from telling students about the intelligent design theory; they claim it is nothing more than souped-up creationism.
   
“Religious theories of creation should not be included in science classes because they are unconstitutional and are bad educational policy,” said Steven Sheinberg, assistant director of legal affairs for the Anti-Defamation League. “Intelligent design is just another species of creationism. It seeks to bring God into the classroom,” Sheinberg said.
   
What’s more, opponents say, intelligent design is bad science, and isn’t much of a theory when held up against Darwin. “As far as evolution is concerned, the debate is closed, as much as any debate in science can be closed,” said Skip Evans, network project director for the Oakland, Calif.-based National Center for Science Education.
   
Evans said he suspects that intelligent design proponents are not being honest about their true beliefs and aims.
   
“It is not only a way to talk about God, it is a way to bring a very narrow version of God into science class for the purpose of proselytizing to students. If they admitted that is what they were doing, the door would be slammed in their face,” Evans said. (RNS)