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