Public Schools in the United States Should not Teach Intelligent Design alongside Evolution

Pro's argument boils down to saying that ID is not science. Therefore, to negate the resolution, all I have to do is show that ID is science. I'll begin by noting that the burden of proof to establish that ID is not science is very high. It is not enough for Pro to show that ID is a minority position among scientists or that many scientists disagree with ID. To wit, Stephen Jay Gould, an evolutionary biologist, wrote: "The quality of a scientific approach or opinion depends on the strength of its factual premises and on the depth and consistency of its reasoning, not on its appearance in a particular journal or on its popularity among other scientists." Gould continues: "Automatically rejecting dissenting views that challenge the conventional wisdom is a dangerous fallacy, for almost every generally accepted view was once deemed eccentric or heretical. Perpetuating the reign of a supposed scientific orthodoxy in this way, whether in a research laboratory or in a courtroom, is profoundly inimical to the search for truth." [1] The point here is that science is not a popularity contest: scientific disagreement does not equal scientific refutation. Therefore, the degree to which ID is accepted in the scientific community is not an appropriate test of whether ID is science or not. To further emphasize this point, consider the fact that being wrong does not necessarily make an idea unscientific. For example, Newtonian physics has been refuted and superseded by Einstein's theory of relativity. Yet Newton's laws are are not only still considered science, they are still taught alongside Einstein's models in public schools. I hope that sinks in: for Pro's argument to work, it would require that Newton's not be taught in public schools. Why? Because Newton's laws are wrong. Of course, since this consequence is unacceptable, it exposes the fallacious logic underlying Pro's reasoning. It is thus not enough for Pro to show that ID is wrong, Pro must show that ID is unscientific in nature. As I said before, the burden of proof to establish that ID is not science is very high, and Pro has clearly not met it. -- Contra Pro's claims, criticisms of evolution are made by many scientists, including scientists who are not proponents of ID. For example, over 1200 scientists signed "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism," including members of the national academies of science in the United States, Russia, Poland, The Czech Republic, and India, as well as professors and researchers at top universities in the study of biology, including MIT, Princeton, Yale, Cambridge, Dartmouth, UC Berkeley, University of Michigan, and the University of Chicago. The petition states: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." [2] Even Stephen Jay Gould, a well-known proponent of evolution, has voiced concerns regarding neo-Darwininism: "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change"; and "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." [3] I'd also like to point out, at this juncture, that Pro's sources do not link directly to the evidence he is citing. Without better citations, it is impossible to know whether Pro is making stuff up or not. Regarding Pro's claims themselves, they themselves are problematic. His first source is an appeal to authority which, as I have already demonstrated, is irrelevant to determining whether ID is science or not. Pro's second source is a survey from 1987 in Newsweek and as such is both out-of-date and unscientific. Pro's third source is irrelevant since I agree that the theory of evolution should be taught. Finally, Pro's fourth sourced claim (the link is to Wikipedia's main page so Pro needs to source better) is also irrelevant since science is not a popularity contest. -- Is ID a scientific theory? Yes. It might be wrong but it is undeniably a scientific theory. To be sure, ID is not Creationism. ID says absolutely nothing about a supernatural creator. It simply states that, according to all available empirical evidence, the mechanisms of evolution do not adequately explain the irreducible complexity of living systems. ID uses the scientific method. It begins with the observation that intelligent agents (in this case, human beings) produce complex and specified information, what is known as CSI. An example of CSI would be a TV show like Mad Men. ID scientists observe that the only known cause of CSI is intelligence. How could the show Mad Men be produced without intelligence? This question leads ID scientists to then hypothesize that objects with CSI must have been designed by an intelligent agent. ID scientists then test ID as a scientific theory by checking whether any natural objects have CSI or not. It turns out that ID scientists have identified CSI in various biological structures, including molecules such as DNA and various proteins. [4] ID is thus science because it is uses the empirical evidence and the scientific method to determine that certain kinds of complexity are caused by intelligence. It is possible to disagree with the conclusions of ID but it is not possible to say ID is not science. -- In conclusion, I'd like to point out that, in Edwards v. Aguillard, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the right of teachers to discuss alternative scientific theories of origin in their classrooms. ID and evolution are both scientific theories, and therefore, teachers have every right to teach ID alongside evolution. Finally, I'd like to note that I do believe teachers should be mandated to teach ID alongside evolution. Ultimately, teachers have the academic freedom to determine whether ID should be taught alongside evolution in their particular classroom. With all that said, the resolution is negated. Sources: [1] http://www.evolutionnews.org... [2] http://www.discovery.org... [3] http://www.stephenjaygould.org... [4] http://www.ideacenter.org... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...