William Allan Kritsonis, PhD

Published on January 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 51 | Comments: 0 | Views: 237
of 17
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL VOLUME 25, NUMBER 3, 2008-2009

EVOLUTION, INTELLIGENT DESIGN, AND PUBLIC EDUCATION
Richard Conway Dalton Beulah Heights University
ABSTRACT
This article does not attempt to prove or disprove evolution or intelligent design nor does it argue the interpretation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. However, it does examine the educational equity and value that each theory brings to the learning experiences of students. An examination of the validity of debates and emphasis centered on each theory is worthy to determine their place in the curriculum in public education. A key purpose of the review of literature was to assist with policy makers with decisions related to the level of emphasis placed on the teaching both theories to stimulate critical thinking .

T

he purpose of this paper is not to prove or disprove evolution or intelligent design or to argue the interpretation of the First Amendment, but to seriously examine the educational equity and value that each theory brings into the educational and learning experience for the students, despite the political, scientific and religious debates that attempt to negate or affirm the contextual teaching of each theory. Much debate and emphasis has been centered on the validity of each theory and should they be taught as a part of the science curriculum in public education. Less emphasis has been on the educational value of teaching both theories as a process of stimulating critical thinking which is one of the major tenets of educational theory and the purpose of education. Education is not only imparting knowledge and skills but the stimulating of the cognitive, critical thinking aspect of learning. In the context of learning the primary issue is not necessarily the correct theory or the best theory, but the educating of students to the construct, framework, development and
60

61

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

knowledge base of each theory so they can formulate their own opinions. This enhances the learning experience of our students. In developing this “educational theme” of the importance of teaching these theories together, whether as part of a science curriculum or as a required course, for example on The Philosophy of Theory Development, this paper will examine and critique the educational, social, political, legal and scientific dimensions of this debate in order to establish a rationale for teaching evolution and intelligent design in the context of public education. At the outset it is important to note that in professional scientific circles intelligent design is not spoken of as a religion, but as a theory. Obviously, intelligent design, as a theory, has religious implications, and, if taught exclusively from a religious point of view as the only explanation of the origin and evolution of life, it would clearly be in violation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment essentially states that congress shall pass no law that establishes, or advances religion. As scientist, educators, and people of faith when we view evolution and intelligent design as theories that attempt to explain the origin of life and how life develops, then both are relevant to the concept and purpose of education in the sense that students can learn, not on the basis of advancing religion or the religion of evolution, but on the basis of understanding two opposing world views on how life began and evolved to its present state. No one theory is the dominant theory, however both strive to be. But in spite of both striving to gain credibility from public opinion both add to the critical thinking process that is inherent in educating our students. As will be discussed later in this paper, the purpose of education or theory of education includes what is termed as critical pedagogy. Ira Shor, a respected educator and proponent of critical pedagogy, defines critical pedagogy as “habits of thought, reading, writing, and speaking which go beneath surface meanings, first impressions, dominant myths, official pronouncements, traditional clichés, received wisdom, and mere opinions, to understand the deep meaning, root causes, social context, ideology, and personal consequences of any action, event, object, process, organization,

Richard Conway Dalton 62

experience, text, subject matter, policy, mass media or discourse.”1 Clearly critical pedagogy is a key component in learning and discerning new concepts. It is through this method of teaching and learning new ideas are explored and developed. It is the reason we have scientific discoveries, inventions and social change. “When students and teachers are encouraged to challenge main systems of knowledge, or when they are prohibited from doing so, democratic principles can be thwarted. Lack of access to knowledge of all kinds has negative outcomes not only for schools in general but also for students specifically”.2 The debate context is useful in that it requires diligent research and scientific inquiry (including the scientific method) this helps to present a clear, concise, rational, logical approach to articulating the validity, or non-validity, of both theories. However, the debate context is futile in terms of both the scientific evolutionist and proponents of intelligent design proving beyond the shadow of a doubt, that their position is correct. This is not to say that the debate or critical inquiry is not relevant. It is. But the issue educationally is to engage students in the analytical development of each theory. The methods used to arrive at each explanation of the origin of life, and allow students to utilize their critical thinking skills to arrive at a contextual theoretical conclusion. None of us were there as an eye witness to evolution or intelligent design otherwise there would be no debate or theory. At best we research, gather information or empirical evidence, to develop a hypothesis, test the data and arrive at a plausible theory. The teaching of these theories enhances the educational process by stimulating students to use their critical/cognitive mental faculties to formulate an opinion concerning each perspective of how life began and how life evolves. It also validates methods of scientific inquiry to ascertain their belief. Since critical pedagogy is a part of educational theory and an essential component in how students achieve critical consciousness, the teaching of evolution and intelligent design (as well as other subjects) fulfills the purpose of education, public and private. “The ancient
1

Ira Shor, Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for Social Change (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 129 2 Sonia Nieto, Why We Teach (College Press: New York, 2005), 210

63

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

Greeks first identified the essence of critical consciousness when philosophers encouraged their students to develop in impulse and willingness to stand back from humanity and nature, to make them objects of thought and criticism, and to search for their meaning and significance.”3 The issue is not to win a debate or to prevent the teaching of either evolution or intelligent design, but to present each as plausible theories on the origin of life based on research, scientific inquiry and the testing of certain empirical evidence, so that students can stand back analyze, critique, and formulate the meaning and significance of both perspectives. The debate itself is educational and should be part of public education everywhere. However, the walls of fear combined with the desire for evolutionist and the intelligent design community to somehow sway public opinion that they have the correct agenda for the origin of life has prevented students from being “truly” educated on both perspectives. This intellectual and theological “way” has to somehow be dismantled in a context that allows students to clearly learn the development of both theories. One of the critical points of contention and debate for the scientific evolution community is the issue of religious views. Pro evolutionists fear that religion will be imposed on those who believe in evolution. This is one of the reasons the First Amendment and the establishment clause is used to prevent the teaching of intelligent design. This is equivalent to creationist or intelligent design supporters being fearful that the theory of evolution somehow will destroy their faith. Will everyone become an evolutionist because they study evolution? Will everyone become religious if they study intelligent design? Obviously, that would not be the case. The experts of these debates are overreacting to what they perceive as a need to defend science or creation to dominate public opinion so they do not lose credibility in terms of their theory. Students have enough intelligence to decide the credibility of each theory once all the facts and research have been presented.

3

Bruce S. Thornton, “Critical Consciousness and Liberal Education,” in Civic Education and Culture, ed. Bradley C. S. Watson (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2005) p3,4

Richard Conway Dalton 64

The deep religious emotional attachment to the teaching of creation or intelligent design, is also a hindrance to an objective approach to teaching it as a theory. Dr. Michael Reiss, professor of science education at The Institute of Education, London England, who is also a Church of England priest says, “You cannot understand why the theory of evolution has aroused such deep feelings, unless you understand creationism.”4 Dr. Reiss is extremely comfortable with the teaching of evolution, but also said, “Creationism should be taught in schools and colleges, though not necessarily in science lessons.”5 It is clear that both theories have educational value in public and private schools. Students learn different world views of the origin of life. Education is the imparting of knowledge and skills, but also presenting certain categories of knowledge in a context of diverse opinions and views. This form of education fosters cultural assimilation in a complex diverse society. This is how learning and education takes place. Let the debates continue, but let us format all the findings and research on each theory in the process of educating our students. This inclusion of both world views is what education is all about. Education engages the mind to comprehend information, process and critique that information then apply or further advance that information. Teaching evolution and intelligent design in our public schools enhances education and sensitizes students to major social, political, religious and cultural views and the distinctions in each. This kind of educational experience creates tolerance of opposing views and stimulates constructive, healthy dialogue, instead of trying to dominate or devalue different groups who express opposing views. One of the great elements or freedoms in a democratic society is that it allows educational institutions to include and teach a wide range of diverse philosophies, theories and disciplines. However, the proponents of both evolution
4

Donald MacLeod, “Dawkins Criticises 'Spread' of Creationism” Guardian Unlimited June 19, 2002 http://education.guardian.co.uk/aslevels/story/0,,740377,00.html (accessed July 27,2007) 5 Ibid

65

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

and intelligent design seem to have a greater desire to win rather than to educate. Part of the manipulation to win or exclude intelligent design as a viable part of the learning experience is the interpretation of the First Amendment, with its political implications.

Richard Conway Dalton 66

Matt Young and Taner Edis, in their book: Why Intelligent Design Fails, state that intelligent design is “a conservative religion agenda masquerading as a scientific alternative to evolution”.6 Given this critique of intelligent design, advocates of evolution resist and attempt to prevent the teaching of intelligent design in public schools by using the First Amendment and its pro evolution interpretation. Again, as stated previously, the First Amendment essentially says that congress shall make no law respecting the establishment, or advancement of religion. Obviously, this protects all of us citizens from abuse and control that can come from religious institutions. However, the interpretation, or establishment clause rulings of the First Amendment vary from case to case, and state to state. For example, in a historic landmark case, Epperson v. Arkansas, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the evolution theory being taught in conjunction with creationism. “The Supreme Court ruled that the establishment clause prohibits the state from advancing any religion and determined that the Arkansas law allowed the teaching of creation, but would not allow the teaching of evolution, advanced religion and therefore was in violation of the First Amendment.”7 This decision by the Supreme Court validates the teaching of both views in public schools. If creation theories had been taught in isolation of or independent to the theory of evolution, or any other anti-creation theories, (as brought forth in this case), it would have been a clear violation of the First Amendment. This Supreme Court decision underscores the fact that if both theories are taught then intelligent design is not necessarily advancing religion. In fact, intelligent design is not a religion, but in scientific communities, it is just another theory that attempts to explain the origin of life without advancing religion. In this context both theories bring value to the educational process. Students gain from knowledge inherent in the development of both theories. Learning happens. Students gain insight and understanding of
6

Matt Young and Taner Edis, Why Intelligent Design Fails : A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism (Piscataway: Rutgers University Press, 2004) xi 7 Gary R. Hartman, Roy M. Mersky, and Cindy L. Tate, eds. Landmark Supreme Court Cases: The Most Influential Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States (New York: Checkmark Books, 2007) 311

67

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

different world views on how life began. Again, let us teach as we debate.

Richard Conway Dalton 68

Even though the Epperson case decision supports the teaching of both theories, in a 1987 case in Louisiana, Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court held that states may not restructure the science curriculum to conform to a particular religious viewpoint.8 The decision centered around Louisiana’s “Creationism Act” stated that states should include the teaching of creationism along with evolution. The Creationism Act prior to the Supreme Court decision forbade the teaching of evolution in public schools. No school was required to teach evolution. However, due to the Supreme Court decision in this case if one is taught, the other must be taught also. The theories of evolution and creation science are statutorily defined as “the scientific evidences for creation or evolution and influences from those scientific evidences”.9 The outcome of this case was that creation science, or “the Creationism Act” promoted the advancement of religious views. However, there is another perspective, in the educational learning context that was seriously overlooked concerning this decision. The presentation of a theory, even if it has religious implications, does not mean that the teaching of that theory necessarily promotes or advances religion. If taught and treated as another theoretical explanation of the origin of life, it contextualizes the genesis of life from another point of view. These view points can promote learning and knowledge, rather than religion. Again, the assumption (and motive) is that religion or the teaching of intelligent design will somehow do more to convert one to religion and undermine science rather than expanding the knowledge base of the students increasing their knowledge concerning legitimate and plausible explanations of life origin theories. I think it may be more of an issue of curriculum design and the method in which the teaching of intelligent design is presented. We live in diverse culture and teaching different world views are an important part of the educational experience. To dismiss one or the other is a disservice to students, teachers and the purpose of education. To teach them in isolation of
8

Peter H. Irons and Stephanie Guitton, eds. May It Please the Court: Transcripts of 23 Live Recordings of Landmark Cases as Argued Before the Supreme Court (New York: The New Press, 1993) 75 9 Ibid 89

69

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

each other removes the critical thinking aspect that undergirds the process of learning and discovering new ways of interpreting reality. Science and the scientific method promote critical consciousness so that learning leads to new approaches and scientific discoveries. Scientific inquiry and methodologies are necessary in educating our students. Insulin, penicillin, open heart surgery, aspirin, the heart-lung machine, etc., and other scientific advancements were not discovered in the church. They were discovered through a process of responsible scientific research. In fact, religious people use the pharmacy and hospitals for healing in many instances more than they do the church. This does not negate religious faith as it relates to a belief in an intelligent designer, but it does say that science and its method of research plays a vital role in discovering new technology and bringing health and wholeness to people. Some of these same principles of research are applied to the theory of evolution. As time goes on and as new evidence is brought to the table, evolution may not become a scientific fact. But in the process of students learning about evolution they are being educated to the methodology used by science to arrive at their understanding of how life began and continues to evolve. For example, Richard Dawkins, in his book The Selfish Gene states, “Within each one of our cells there are numerous tiny bodies called mitochondria. The mitochondria are chemical factories responsible for providing the energy we need. If we lost our mitochondria we would be dead within seconds.”10 This is educational. Intelligent design also plays a vital role in educating students to gain knowledge concerning other views of how life began, and how life continues to evolve.

10

Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (New York: Oxford Press, 2006), 182

Richard Conway Dalton 70

The pedagogy of learning about the origin of life must include different views to stimulate critical thinking as students compare these two theories to arrive at their own conclusion. Science, evolution and intelligent design are somewhat integrated, but clearly have points of distinction. In his book Unweaving the Rainbow, Richard Dawkins, says “Our sweat contains a complicated cocktail of proteins, and the precise details of all proteins are minutely specified by the coded DNA instructions that are our genes. Unlike handwriting and faces which vary continuously and grade smoothly into one another, genes are digital codes, much like those used in computers. Again, with the exception of identical twins, we differ genetically from all other people in discrete, discontinuous ways: an exact number of ways that you could even count if you had the patience.”11 Students would gain educationally if they understood what those points were. Science has a responsible method they use to insure that appropriate steps are taken to engage in making new discoveries. In fact, one of the criticisms of intelligent design is that it does not have a way of testing its assumptions or hypothesis to arrive at a valid theory, or fact that concludes that there is an intelligent designer of all forms of reality. Science, for example, has certain facts or laws that are considered in the mix of making new scientific discoveries. Some of these are the Law of Gravity, the Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Gases, the Law of Motion, the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy and the Law of Elasticity. These laws are used to help discover other scientific advancements. Within the scientific method framework the intelligent design theory does not allegedly have any scientific laws that add credibility toward proving the existence of an intelligent designer. The intelligent design theoretical construct is more conceptual, based on a hypothesis of logic and reason that says if an object reflects design, purpose and intelligence then some designer must have made or created it. Science says this is not necessarily so. Pure chance or the self arranging of energy, matter and other forms of life does not require a “designer”. Some experts that support the intelligent design theory disagree with this analysis of object reality. Michael Behe says,
11

Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder (New York: Mariner Books, 1998) 89

71

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

“Design is the purposeful arrangement of parts. Rational agents can coordinate pieces into a larger system (like a ship) to accomplish a purpose. Although sometimes the purpose of the system is obscure to an observer that stumbles upon it, so the design goes unrecognized, usually the purpose can be discerned by examining the system.”12 At this point of debate or disagreement, I would like to introduce a concept that may fit into the scientific method that addresses the development and testing of empirical evidence. This concept is termed “the Law of Intellect”. First, let us look at a definition of intelligence. “Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings— catching on, making sense of things or figuring out what to do.” 13 Given this definition, and others the “Law of Intellect” says that every discovery, fact or theory is related to the use of the intellect. Everything that people make, discover or invent requires the faculties of the intellect, i.e. the ability to reason, critique and assimilate data to arrive (or move toward arriving) at some conclusion to discover, invent or further develop some theory. Therefore, nothing apart from the use of intellect, or capacity to think and reason, can be discovered, known or created. Our observance of objective reality confirms this. Just as science has laws, i.e., laws of gravity, thermodynamics, motion, etc., the theory of intelligent design also has a law which has been part of scientific discovery and for years which I term the Law of Intellect.

12

Michael J. Behe, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism (New York: Free Press, 2007), 168

Linda Gottfredson, “Mainstream Science on Intelligence,” Wall Street Journal, (December 13, 1994), A18
13

Richard Conway Dalton 72

For example, an engineer or architect when designing something employs his/her intellect to design something with purpose, order and usefulness. Their designs are a reflection of the use of faculties inherent in their intellect that gives them the capacity to create. Even though we may never personally meet the engineer or the architect, we can clearly see the purpose, logic and usefulness of what they created. This is the premise of the “Law of Intellect”: you cannot see the designer but you can see the representation of an intelligence that designed the object, building or structure with order, purpose and function. This law also says nothing can be created or invented without the use of the brain, or more specifically, the intellect. This analogy is not to prove intelligent design or disprove evolution. It is a way of using the Law of Intellect to engage in one of the steps of the scientific method, i.e., the testing of empirical evidence to formulate a hypothesis. Subsequent to the hypothesis is the testing of the hypothesis; the examination that the intellect employed by the engineer or architect designed affirms order, purpose and function of the structures they build. This is empirical evidence that can be tested.

73

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

Lee Strobel, an advocate for intelligent design, says from investigating the evidence for an intelligent designer, he found that the evidence was credible, cogent and compelling. The combination of the findings from cosmology and physics by themselves were sufficient to support the design hypothesis.14 This again, underscores that the teaching of both these theories have a legitimate place in public education. Both have scientific credibility in terms of methods employed to formulate each theory. This is more relevant or germane to educating our students, than advancing or promoting religion. We have two theories that have frameworks for arriving at theoretical conclusions that are credible, practical, and logical and can be tested. This is relevant to the educational and learning process—it broadens the knowledge base of the development of both theories. Associated with the concept of the Law of Intellect is a principle used in every scientific discovery or experiment. This is the principle of cause and effect.

14

Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator : A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004) 283

Richard Conway Dalton 74

Science says for every effect there is a cause or a reason that brought the effect into existence. When a scientist, for example, puts sodium and chloride together the effect is salt. Two independent variables produce a dependent variable. In this process of mixing these two chemicals together is the Law of Intellect. The outcome of salt was not just the mixing of the two chemicals, but the use of intellect to produce the outcome. The logic, order and reasoning capacity of intelligence analyzed, critiqued and manipulated two different chemicals to produce salt. The research involved to develop a hypothesis to achieve this outcome also relates to the use of intelligence or the Law of Intellect. Our physical world has properties that when analyzed and put together produce other forms of reality, via the use of intellect. Classical physics held that the reality of the physical world is constructed of infinitesimal particles in a sea of space. Causation, in this scheme, reflects at bottom, one particle acting on its immediate neighbor, which in turn acts on its neighbor until— well until something happens.15 From the intelligent design viewpoint these particles were designed in such a way that they were predisposed to know when and how to connect to their neighbor until—well, until something happens. Educationally, this is another way of explaining the intelligent design aspect of how energy and matter interconnect and produce other forms of existence and life. Even as we observe the physical and biological make up of our bodies we see intelligence reflected and how different parts are coordinated to function. Pure chance? Maybe. The proof aspect is not the issue as much as the teaching and educational development of the components of each theory. Students should be able to study, discuss and learn both world views in a public education setting. Since our public classrooms are usually a microcosm of society and culture, the teaching of evolution and intelligent design embraces that diversity and can potentially make all of us citizens who are accepting and tolerant of a wide spectrum of diverse and opposing views. This too is the purpose of education. The obvious challenge however, is teaching intelligent design in the academic context of just another theory, without trying to promote or
15

Jeffrey M. Schwartz and Sharon Begley, The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force (New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 2002)

75

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

advance religion or to attack the theory of evolution and scientist and teachers who embrace evolution. Instead we should seek some common ground and respect the great work and discoveries our scientist have made past, present and future, whether they believe in evolution or intelligent design. The challenge is for intelligent design to be taught, not necessarily as an alternative to evolution, but as “another” theory. Debating with an end view of only wining or losing is not as much of an issue as the educational value each theory provides to enable students to learn and critically interpret various opinions and theories of how life began and evolved. Our cultural diversity requires that we educate our students to assimilate into society with an understanding, and, in some cases, appreciation of opposing world views. This is the meaning of democracy and the value of living in a democratic society. The teaching of evolution and intelligent design supports this kind of democratic freedom in the public and private arena of education.

Richard Conway Dalton 76

REFERENCES Behe, M. (2007). The edge of evolution: the search for the limits of darwinism. New York: Free Press. Dawkins, R. (2006). The selfish gene. New York: Oxford Press. Dawkins, Richard. Unweaving the rainbow: science, delusion and the appetite for wonder New York: Mariner Books. Gottfredson, L. (1998). Mainstream science on intelligence, Wall Street Journal, December 13, 1994, A18. Hartman, G., Mersky R., & Tate C., eds. (2007). Landmark supreme court cases: the most influential decisions of the supreme court of the united states. New York: Checkmark Books. Irons, P. & Guitton, S., eds. (1993). May it please the court: transcripts of 23 live recordings of landmark cases as argued before the supreme court New York: The New Press. MacLeod, D. (June 19, 2002). Dawkins criticises 'spread' of creationism. Guardian Unlimited. Retrieved on July 27,2007 from
http://education.guardian.co.uk/aslevels/story/0,,740377,00.html

Nieto, S. Why we teach. College Press: New York, 2005 Shor, Ira. Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992 Schwartz, J. & Begley, S. (2002) The mind and the brain: neuroplasticity and the power of mental force. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc. Strobel, L. (2004) The case for a creator : A journalist investigates scientific evidence that points toward god. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Thornton, B. (2005). Critical consciousness and liberal education. Civic Education and Culture, ed. Bradley C. S. Watson Wilmington: ISI Books. Young, M., & Taner, E. (2004). Why intelligent design fails : A scientific critique of the new creationism. Piscataway: Rutgers University Press.

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close