Is Intelligence being Expelled from our classrooms?

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, May 9, 2008

Because my hectic schedule has not allowed me the time to see Ben Stein’s documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, I can not and will not comment directly upon the film itself. However, I can and will respond to some questions raised by my fellow columnist in his review of the film and its thesis.

According to my brother’s column, he expected “a dialogue about the alternate theory of creation that ID (Intelligent Design) presents.”

It is my intent here to open such dialogue and I invite all interested parties to respond, as long as we all agree to follow the rules of decency and to refrain from making broad, unsubstantiated statements.

To begin with, I must admit that I have more than a passing interest in this topic. Some of you may not know that one of my many obligations is that of substitute teacher for the Earth Science classes at Twin Tiers Christian Academy in Breesport. As a consequence of that obligation, I have just recently spent several weeks of my life preparing and teaching lessons about the Geologic Ages and the Evolution of Life according to the curriculum mandated by the New York State Board of Regents. I taught the students how to follow the guidelines of determining a rock’s age by the index fossils contained therein and also how to correlate the age of the fossils by the rock strata that contained them. I taught the students that, according to their book and for the purpose of answering the questions on the exam, their lives, thoughts, dreams and very souls were the result of a long progression of chance mutations and natural selection. I taught them that the first living things resulted from a chance lightning strike upon a primordial, chemical soup; and that these primitive living things somehow mutated into photosynthetic organisms. I then taught them, that according to their textbook (Brief Review for New York Earth Science – The Physical Setting, pg. 260) these organisms used Carbon Dioxide and released free Oxygen in enough amounts to alter the atmosphere of the earth.

I proceeded to teach them all the information in the remainder of that chapter, but then I challenged them to think a little deeper. Because this particular school allows the teachers and students the privilege of academic freedom, I was able to open another door and to allow these students to peek into another room of thought. I was able to expose my students to the idea that neither Evolutionary Theory nor Intelligent Design Theory should be considered as settled scientific fact, because both are dealing with the subject of ORIGINS – of the universe and of life itself – and neither could be open for refutation by experimentation and observation (which is the criteria for true scientific methodology).

I was able to teach them that both theories should be treated as Scientific Models, which could then be designated as credible or legitimate through the agency of prediction and analysis of those predictions.

If the Evolutionary Model is correct, then certain predictions could be matched with known (irrefutable) laws and facts. If, however, the Intelligent Design Model is correct, then it too could be matched with known facts.

I believe that this method of teaching served my students best, as I believe it is more important to produce critical thinkers than it is to produce robotic test takers.

Now, concerning the two models, let me briefly outline the two conflicting theories, realizing that the word count and space limitations preclude me from explaining them in great detail.

Intelligent Design Theory postulates that an Intelligent Cause, rather than a material or unguided chemical cause can best explain the qualities we see as we make advances in scientific discoveries (cell structure, DNA, microscopic features of single–cell organisms, etc). According to this ID model, one would predict that we would find complexity and purposeful design in every life form, from the ‘simplest’ to the most complex. In other words, we would predict that the feathered falcon that flies above our forests would be as complex and purposely designed as the Falcon fighter jet produced for our U.S. Military. Until we can intelligently design a plane to reproduce itself, I would posit that the feathered design is far superior.

For the purpose of this discussion, I will restrict my definition of Darwinian Evolution to the following: A materialistic theory of the history of the diversification of organisms from common ancestors through a process of descent with modification. Change is the result of material causes, driven primarily by random variation and natural selection.

Regarding the introduction of Intelligence into the classroom as a possible cause for all life, I think it is more than ironic that we seek out intelligence or design in many other scientific endeavors without fear. For example, the Search for Extra–Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) program has spent over 40 years and millions of dollars scanning the radio waves from space to determine if there is any sign of intelligent life out there. The criteria for that intelligence would be the detection of a repeating pattern that is not random. We also seek design and intelligence when we conduct forensic examinations of dead bodies to determine a murderous agency (something other than natural causes); archeologists seek out design and purpose when exploring digs to determine intelligent life forms. Why then can we not teach our students to examine the fossil evidence and cell biology for signs of intelligence? What are we afraid of?