Competing Theories? : Evolution ‘Disclaimer Stickers’ and Intelligent Design

End of a Long Fight Over….Stickers?

A four-year legal battle by a Georgia school board regarding text-book stickers claiming evolution is “a theory, not a fact” is finally coming to an end. Cobb County School Board was fighting in a federal court to keep the stickers, but has abandoned the case. The stickers, which were seen by the government as a means to undermine the teaching of evolution, were placed on the textbooks after parents complained that competing theories such as the literal biblical creationist belief was not taught. A federal judge ordered the stickers removed in 2005, which the school board fought until this week.

The stickers read: “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”

Another Page in the Evolution Saga

This court case’s resolution is just another chapter in the fight of creationism vs. evolution in the science class. Last year, a federal judge barred a school district in Dover Pennsylvania (the notorious Dover case) from teaching “intelligent design” as an a competing theory with evolution, stating that it was just a slick re-packaging of creationism which had already been barred. In addition, earlier this year the state school board in Kansas attempted to adopt official stances contrary to evolution, although those anti-evolution members were ousted by voters.

Is Creationism (“Intelligent Design”) Really A Competing Theory?

It baffles me that people would try to argue that intelligent design (ID) could qualify as science, and therefore have a place in a science classroom. I have absolutely nothing against the belief system behind ID, and believe that the tenet of freedom of religion is something that every American has the right to enjoy. My perspective is rather the “call a spade a spade” argument. Science is, by definition, “a system of acquiring knowledge–based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism–aimed at finding out the truth.” Therefore, for something to be considered science, it must adhere to the above stated principles. (The products of science are not absolute truth, but rather what is deemed true given the existing evidence.) In addition, scientific data is procured and theories must be testable using the scientific method, which refers to a process for evaluating empirical knowledge and observations in nature without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. Yes, it works both ways. Therefore, the scientific method could, in theory, provide the same sort of evidence to both sides of the question. In reality, it has only provided evidence for one side.

Scientific theories are formulated as a direct result of evidence, not the other way around. Therefore a theory devoid of evidence cannot be assumed to be accurate or true (see above about absolute truth). When new evidence comes along, theories can either be modified to fit the evidence or it can be deemed as contradicted and discarded, in the extreme case. ID falls short of the criteria for being deemed “science” in every way possible: no evidence (that would certainly be enough) and in fact ignores contradicting evidence, it is theory-driven rather than evidence-driven, its hypotheses are neither testable nor refutable, it cannot be physically observed in the natural world, it has no predictive value, assumes the presence of the supernatural, etc. Given this, ID cannot meet the standard for science.

Alternative theories SHOULD be debated and explored in the public forum, and a philosophy class is the proper forum. If proponents really just cared about presenting opposing views rather than casting doubt on a strong theory that they believe conflicts with the existence of the supernatural, that should be satisfactory. I say believe, because I have yet to really understand why the ideas of evolution and god are mutually exclusive.

Leave a comment