'Intelligent design' has no place in classroom

Aug. 23, 2005

Spectrum\Art Carney

There is a fundamental difference between science and religion, but we humans need them both if we are to survive and prosper. Because science is a product of skepticism and religion is a product of faith, it is unlikely there will ever be a commingling of their opposing points of view.

However, their lack of common ground does not diminish the value of either, but it would be helpful if their sometimes antagonistic proponents would recognize the legitimate validity of each other. Religion contributes to the peace of mind of individuals while science contributes to the general good of mankind, but if they are to coexist peacefully, they each need to mind their own business.

Fortunately, America's constitutional prohibition on government establishment of religion mandates the separation of church and state. It is a policy that allows for the practice of any and all religions, while keeping the government from getting excessively involved with it. Those who value freedom of religion, as well as those who want to be free of it, are well served by the separation of church and state.

As for recent claims about "intelligent design" being a scientific theory, the name itself implies there is an Intelligent Designer, however, not calling it God doesn't make it scientific.

Pastor Ron Hamman (Frontiersman, Religion View, 5/14/05) makes a distinction between intelligent design and Biblical creations, but he seems to contradict the distinction in a later paragraph where he explains, "One reason why many are unwilling to accept the scientific evidence for Biblical creation is that they are unwilling to believe their creator will send them to hell as punishment for their wicked, evil sins. As if they can dictate to God." Evidently, in spite of being a Biblical creationist, the good pastor supports intelligent design even though he doesn't offer any scientific evidence.

Pastor Hamman later says the Achilles heel of Darwin's theory is "irreducible complexity," which, in essence, is described as any system that cannot be produced by a contingent series of chance causes and effects over a period of time, but must be a complete system to begin with in order to function.

From my point of view I believe all systems in this world have evolved and I suspect that "irreducible complexity" is only a convenient term for anything that "intelligent design scientists" (?) cannot explain. In their mind, if no other explanation seems possible for certain things, there must be an intelligent designer, and then it seems reasonable that since they don't call it God, "intelligent design" ought to be taught in public schools.

However, because the law of the land requires school attendance, and because public schools are funded with tax money, the separation between church and state would be violated if public school taught the religious idea that an intelligent designer created an irreducibly complex system of existence or whatever.

The idea of intelligent design has no place in a public school science curriculum, but a discussion of its merits may have a place in the more lofty humanitarian subjects, such as philosophy, comparative religion and certain areas of social studies.

But its most natural place is in Sunday school, where it will receive a fair hearing from like-minded people of faith.

Art Carney is a Wasilla

resident.