When Copernicus found that the Earth revolved around the sun, a great schism was initiated between science and religion in which proponents of each side have held tightly to their proclaimed beliefs, while only a few seek common ground between the two spheres. In the 19th century, Charles Darwin widened the gap when he introduced his theory of evolution propelled by natural selection, eliciting outrageous oppostion from religious institutions because of its indication that human beings were evolved from lower animals rather than specially distinct entities directly created in the image of God. In an attempt to manipulate scientific terminology to fit traditional doctrines, religious conservatives have proposed the idea of "intelligent design." Intelligent design asserts that the complex schemes of biological organisms could not have developed on their own, or by Darwin's theory of natural selection; rather, they could only have been created by someone who knew what they were doing, or an "intelligent designer" i.e. God. In the last year there was some debate in the media about whether or not it should be taught in public schools. Here I will discuss its incredulity as sound scientific theory which disqualifies it as part of a legitimate science curriculum. I will also the expose the religious agenda that intelligent design would seek to impose, as well as its social implications that would stunt human progress.

Intelligent design suggests that biological structures are expressly intended for the functions we observe them to carry out. In a short essay published on the website of Natural History magazine, Dr. Michael Behe uses the analogy of a mouse trap to explain something he calls "irreducible complexity." A mouse trap cannot catch mice without any of its parts, as, purportedly, other systems such as the rotation of bacterial flagella or blood clotting mechanisms, could not work in the absence of one of its components. In response, Dr. Kenneth Miller again takes apart the mouse trap to show that the dismembered parts can be put to other uses. "The point," he writes, "which science has long understood, is that bits and pieces of supposedly irreducibly complex machines may have different - but still useful - functions." He goes onto note that both bacterial flagella and blood clotting may work in the absence of one part of those mechanisms. Where intelligent design seems to imply that natural entities are finished products, there are innumerable examples of imperfect structures and mechanisms. Daniel Dennett, in an article published in the New York Times, refers to human eye, "one of the favorite challenges of creationists" for its complexity and intricate workings. The retina is inside out, which causes the blind spot in human vision, although he neglects to mention the most obvious flaw which is that most eyes cannot see clearly more than 20 feet in front of them (Dennett). These are just a couple of examples to show the clumsiness of the evolutionary process in place of an intelligent, conscious builder.

The most inherently flawed aspect of this "theory" is its claim to scientific credibility, and this issue is most relevant in the consideration to teach it in public education, for which President George W. Bush expressed his support (Dennett). In the scientific process, we hypothesize, test, obtain data, and draw conclusions according to that study. These data, to develop a theory, must be repeatable. The process of natural selection can be repeatedly observed from the survival of bacteria in the presence of antibiotics on a petri dish to the fastest gazelle in a herd running from a lion. In the case of intelligent design, it is concluded that the complexity of biological systems could only have been contrived by God. This suggests that no further investigation is necessary to explain how certain, or any, biological structures were developed. This brings inquiry even into fundamental questions, such as where we as human beings really came from, to a halt. In this way, intelligent design contradicts the role of scientific research, and clashes with scientific culture, which is one that continuously investigates and questions rather than stops at one conclusion. Intelligent design is a rhetorical counter argument of those conclusions drawn from hard research. There have been no studies executed to test its validity. This renders it unfit to be to be included in a science curriculum. This is not to say, however, that it should be actively excluded from class discussion, as nothing ought to be censored in a free education, but it should not be presented as sound scientific theory.

The dissemination of intelligent design has an obvious religious agenda and sociological implications. Intelligent design claims to propose logical evidence for the existence of God, which religious conservatives insist that science and evolutionary theory contradict. The heart of the disruption that evolutionary biology causes in religious individuals and institutions may not necessarily be about what God is to us, existent or non existent, but rather what we are to God. In other words, the meaning of our existence. The idea in intelligent design that biological systems have fixed structures and mechanisms can be extrapolated to say that human beings have a particular, static nature. We want to believe that our existence has intrinsic value beyond that which we attribute to it. It is difficult for anyone to come to terms with the probability that we are not inherently associated with a power higher than the ones to which we find ourselves fated. Human beings must be honest with themselves about these insecurities in light of new scientific discoveries rather than trying to manipulate evidence to support conservative doctrines that impede progress and neglect to address current issues.

The most outrageous aspect of intelligent design is its implication of the dissocation of human life from its natural environment, exempting itself from the responsibility for the resources it excessively consumes and fails to replenish. Such a method of thinking is convenient for a government whose support is drawn from religious conservatives and whose primary interests are in expanding profits of big oil companies and carrying out military operations in foreign land without consideration for its inhabitants. Considering that God exists, and further, that he is on our side as human beings, imparts that we will be delivered in any serious endangerment to our survival. Insisting on this premise creates a very false sense of security, and, if at least passively, relieves one social and environmental responsibility, and will have dire consequences on both human existence and the earth we inhabit.

Evolutionary biology will continue to clash with literary intepretations of religious texts. Intelligent design is an attempt to manipulate scientific language to fit a religious conviction, that the complex systems found in nature could only have been designed by a greater intelligence. There is no empirical evidence to support such a conclusion, thus it is unfit to be taught as valid scientific theory in a credible public education curriculum, although its open dicussion may not be forbidden, in accordance with the right to free speech. Presenting in a context that seeks to impose religious creed as legitimate science disparages the research and role of the scientific community. Intelligent design is also ethically unsound in that it isolates humanity from its natural surroundings, and the supposed evidence for the existence of God reinforces a comfort zone which dissociates people from their society and the environment from which they obtain their resources. This impedes, even reverses, human progress on social, scientific, and spiritual levels.