Name
Professor Martin
English 1301
3 April 2008
The Never Ending Clash of Faith and Truth
	Throughout the history of the world, people have attempted to impress their beliefs on others.  Various ways of religious and spiritual thinking have spread, divided, and evolved over the years and the globe.  As time has passed, however, a new opponent has arisen in this never-ending struggle.  With the arrival of science, many of the spiritual explanations to all sorts of natural occurrences have been proven wrong and replaced with the knowledge of how the planet truly works.  There have been some survivors, though, one being intelligent design.  Many people fight to have it taught in public schools as a scientific theory along side or, in some cases, in place of evolution.  While this battle is far from over, due to its roots in religion, lack of scientific proof, and incredible similarity to the already rejected creationism, it is not likely that intelligent design will win in the end.
	The basis of the first religions came from a lack of understanding of how many things in the world function.  Ancient civilizations observed natural occurrences, such as life, the changing of the seasons, the sun, and death and began to question how it all worked.  Due to their lack of scientific reasoning at the time, they began to believe that these acts of nature must have something to do with a great force that controlled much of the world.  This thought led to the creation of the first gods and deities, which then continued to change and evolve into the belief systems known today.  As the growth in knowledge and technology progressed, many of the explanations that had been conceived were proven incorrect.  Simon Locke says it quite nicely when he references author D.B. Wilson in saying “In essence, science – and the conjunction of reason and materialism that it embodies – progressively displaces traditional beliefs, eclipsing religious, superstitious, and irrational world-views and knowledge claims (Wilson, 1966).  I refer to this model of the unfolding developmental logic of science in modernity as the rationalization hypothesis” (5).  While some of these changes were accepted, many people had come to trust their beliefs to such a degree that they denied the innovative ways of thinking and often became truly enraged by them.  Various scientists and philosophers throughout the years have been rejected and persecuted by religious zealots because of their thoughts and theories.  From Galileo to Darwin, these individuals have been forced to endure such outrage at their experimental reasoning in order to have them eventually accepted.  This process is certainly nothing new and continues even to this day.
	The primary argument against intelligent design’s being taught in public schools is the same that denied creationism’s entry.  Intelligent design, creationism, and each form that the two have adopted over time all have their roots in religious belief.  The most common response people have to the suggestion of any of these being introduced is to begin quoting the “separation of church and state” argument.  Although this is probably the easiest and most basic reason to cite, it is not nearly as effective as many hope.  The simple fact that religion is not supposed to combine with government-run and regulated institutions should be quite enough to end the argument over intelligent design’s being brought into the public school system.  The problem, however, is that most individuals who defend its introduction completely deny its relation to any religious or spiritual origins.  They try to claim that no god or deity is ever mentioned and that the idea simply refers to a designer or intelligence with no clarification as to who or what it may be.  This really does not help support their side of the issue due to the fact that even though they do not specify a particular religious icon, they are still referencing some force or being that has an amount of control over the world and the way that it functions.  By leaving the identity of this intelligence so vague, they are only failing to designate one religious denomination that developed this idea.  It just does not alter the reality that intelligent design is a religious belief and nothing more.  Furthermore, intelligent design is just that, a belief.  It is an idea that many people choose to trust solely on faith.  As intelligent design supporter Michael Behe states, “Whatever special restrictions scientists adopt for themselves don’t bind the public” (719).  The scientific community has strict guidelines for what they can and cannot trust, but the general population is capable of accepting any choice that they like whether it has any truth or even if it does not make any logical sense whatsoever.  That is the entire basis of religion itself really, taking an idea completely on faith.  Of course, it is absolutely understandable for people to believe what they choose, but since it is a choice, there is no reason to teach it in schools.  It would be impossible to test the students if they were free to think anything that they wanted in class.  This just boils down to the plain and simple truth that intelligent design is a religious belief that cannot and should not be taught in the classroom.
	Intelligent design is not even a new concept at all.  In reality this idea has already been rejected by its previous name, creationism.  When the Supreme Court decision of Edwards v. Aguilard declared that the state of Louisiana could not force its schools to teach creation science alongside evolution, the belief took on the new form of intelligent design (Perkins 120).  The vast numbers of creation supporters were told that their doctrine could not be taught in schools on the basis that it was rooted in religion and the Constitution clearly states that religion is not to be associated with government institutions.  They did not accept defeat, however.  Instead, their next course of action was to find a loophole that would allow them to evade this barrier.  Along with a change over to the name of intelligent design, they removed the specific references to a god and just speak of a general intelligence.  Supporters believed that if it did not appear to be religious then it could make its way into the schools.  This was not their only attempt to sneak it in however.  They even tried to have the definition of science changed so that it would be just vague enough to allow their views access.  According to Sid Perkins, this suggestion was brought before the State Board of Education in Kansas.  It was suggested that the description be changed to include details that would more clearly define what can be considered a science.  This may sound like a fair plan that might actually hurt the intelligent design supporters’ case, but it is actually just another clever effort to trick the school board.  By simply removing a single word from the definition, they opened the door to supernatural theories being included as well (Perkins 121).  While this is an interesting approach to introducing their ideas, it just does not work and also comes with the possible result of hurting the entire world of science in the future.  If the definition is altered enough to let religious “theories” in, then there is no telling what else could make its way.  Even though creationism has been barred from entrance into the public school system, the fight for intelligent design is now under way, and it seems that there could be no end in sight to these deceptive tactics.
	When all of the pro-intelligent design fanatics ignore the first basic blockades into the world of science, the next logical step is usually to attack the argument itself.  The reality is that intelligent design does not need to be taught in schools, not just because it is a religious belief that has already been rejected, but because there is no factual basis for believing it at all.  As said before, intelligent design is only a belief that people choose to take on faith.  Science is based on various theories about the way the world works that can either be proven true or false.  Intelligent design introduces the thought that life was created by some intelligent force.  The problem with this is that this intelligence cannot be observed in any way.  The proponents of the concept are unable to offer any actual proof that there is an intelligent force capable of creating life.  They also do not provide any opportunity for it to be proven wrong.  This would leave anyone wishing to learn the origin of life on earth to simply accept what they are being told without being able to question it or be shown why it is true.  That is not the way that science works.  Whenever a scientific theory is introduced it is constantly questioned, debated, experimented, and tested.  It can go through decades or even centuries of scrutiny.  Some people search endlessly for flaws, while others may adapt the theory to fit these flaws.  If intelligent design cannot be put through this process, then it cannot be called a science and taught in the science department of schools.  In defense of each side of the issue, everyone has made some attack on the logic of the opposition.  This represents one more way that the factual and logical positions fall short for intelligent design.  Harold Morowitz, Robert Hazen, and James Trefil comment on an argument made by author Philip Gosse that “Adam was created with a navel, even though he had never been inside a womb” (723).  This is one type of criticism that religion is often forced to endure.  When ideas are filled with false logic and the stories behind them with constant shortcomings and confusing situations, it is impossible to accept them as scientific possibilities.  Since the creation of religion, people have tried to pass off the various beliefs of the workings and creation of the world as truth or science.  Countless individuals support these explanations and believe them to be true, and while they are perfectly justified in their right to do so, they simply cannot force others to trust the same faiths.  When put to the test of surviving in the realm of science, facts, and logic, many of the religious doctrines cannot last.
From the other side of the debate also comes the overwhelming evidence that supports the theory of evolution.  Many intelligent design supports attempt to say that evolution is a false theory and that there are too many flaws and holes in the hypothesis.  They occasionally try to persuade others to accept their beliefs on this basis.  In the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a Pennsylvania judge struck down this tactic.  The schools would start the class with a statement that evolution was not based on complete factual evidence but rather was simply another belief similar to intelligent design.  They would then direct the students to the school’s library if they chose to learn more about the religious viewpoint.  Although this procedure cut into the class very little and did not involve the actual teaching of intelligent design, Judge John Jones III turned it down on the basis that it would be an obvious approval of religious teachings in school.  He stated that it caused the students to be skeptical of evolution and suggested that they turn to another scientific theory which happened to truly be a religious option in disguise (Editorial 733).  Of course, to some degree these spiritual believers were not lying about everything.  It is true that evolution is a theory and there are several flaws.  However, that is no different from most scientific theories and speculation.  It takes a long time to determine the entire truth and understanding in the world of science, and just because some points have yet to be proven, that certainly does not mean that evolution should be completely disregarded.  It has been studied and tested and although there is still much left to discover, the proof is most definitely there.  Not all of the evidence is seen through scientific experimentation though.  Countless clues can be seen through simple observation by any normal person with no scientific background.  Robert Pennock describes the behavior of a group of chimps in the zoo.  However, because he does not immediately explain that he is referring to chimps one might believe that he is simply observing a human mother and her children playing.  This statement demonstrates how similar one aspect of a primate is to that of humans (43).  He mentions the behavior of these chimps and even remarks on the differences and similarities between them and other chimps.  It really does show almost a timeline of where evolution has taken us through the years.  He then began talking about exchanges between other people nearby while looking at the chimps.  A teenage girl’s reaction to the animals was very important to the point he was trying to get across.  As he listened to her, he realized that she was pointing out various likenesses to humans in their physical form.  As she saw, both their arms and legs were not far from being identical to that of a person.  It was quite interesting to him how the young girl, who most likely had no real knowledge of the physical structure of the body, could observe such obvious evidence of evolution (Pennok 44).  There is just too much evidence of the truth behind evolution to really even consider that it could be false at this point.  The clean and clear reality of the situation is that there simply is no factual evidence for or against intelligent design that can allow it to be admitted to the science world, and its position up against evolution does not stand up.
	Another problem with the intelligent design idea is an interesting one that arises from its entire premise.  The supporters of this claim say that evidence of design can be seen in natural objects.  For example, intelligent design proponent William Dembski refers to Mount Rushmore and the fact that it was designed and built, but if someone came along after humans were gone, then they might see a design without knowing who did it (710).  Now first of all, this example does not truly compare with seeing design in a natural object.  Huge differences appear in the way that a face carved into the side of a mountain looks in relation to the way that any other mountain may look.  Of course, this leads into this new issue.  When someone claims to see evidence of some intelligent design in a natural object, how much of what they are seeing is simply comparing that natural occurrence to something similar that they have already seen?  Possibly the true question is, how much of the design seen in nature is only visible because it is being compared to a design created by humans and based on nature.  Possibly the entire idea of intelligent design came from some instinctive comparison of something that was not understood to something that was already known.
	With the rise of science, many of the old beliefs that sprang up from a simple lack of information and understanding have been abandoned.  Some, however, still hold on to their survival and refuse to give up.  Intelligent design and its many previous forms are fighting a losing battle trying to make their way into public teaching and there really is not much hope for its success.

Works Cited
Behe, Michael J. Design for Living.  New York Times. 2005. Intelligent Design: Is It Science?. 717-719.
Dembski, William A. Intelligent Design. Encyclopedia of Religion. 2005. Intelligent Design: Is It Science?.  710-715.
Editorial. Intelligent Design Derailed. New York Times. 2005. Intelligent Desin: Is It Science?. 732-734.
Hazen, Robert, Harold Morowitz and James Trefil. Intelligent Design Has No Place in the Science Curriculum. Chronicle of Higher Learning. 2005. Intelligent Design: Is It Science?. 722-728.
Locke, Simon. Construction “The Beginning”: Discourses of Creation Science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers, 1999. NetLibrary. CCCCD Lib., Plano, TX. 21 March 2008 <http://www.netlibrary.com/>.
Pennock, Robert T. Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1999. NetLibrary. CCCCD Lib., Plano, TX. 19 March 2008 <http://www.netlibrary.com/>.
Perkins, Sid. “Evolution in Action: The Trials and Tribulations of Intelligent Design.” Science News 169.8 (2006) 120-121. JSTOR. CCCCD Lib., Plano, TX. 18 March 2008 <http://links.jstor.org>.