Support Academic Freedom in Science Classes by Michael Parrish

“Forty years of research have left chemical evolutionary theorists progressively more, not less, befuddled by the origin of life. The design hypothesis is resisted, not because there is a good, naturalistic explanation for life’s origin, but because certain arbitrary "rules" prohibit consideration of theories that refer to creative intelligence. In short, resistance to intelligent design derives from philosophical convention, not observed evidence.” - Dr. Stephen C. Meyer

Recently passed by a Florida Senate committee, the "Evolution Academic Freedom Act" could allow teachers to finally challenge Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection with alternative theories that include Creationism and Intelligent Design. Right now, Florida teachers are legally barred from teaching anything but the Theory of Evolution, literally risking prosecution if they do. Next, the act will go before the full Florida State Senate for consideration.

If approved, the bill may represent a landmark shift in the Government’s attitude towards Evolution, which has traditionally been promoted in Science Classes as Gospel.

Liberal critics insist that what is being labeled as academic freedom somehow serves to break down the indestructible wall separating church and State.

In a recent poll Pew Research Center reports that 43% of Americans think that Intelligent Design should be taught in public school science classes, while 21% feel as though it should not. The remaining 36% were undecided. It would seem that the Committee is promoting the consensus of the public.

The Theory of Intelligent Design (ID), which has given Evolutionists nothing but headaches, stems from one simple question: Aren’t certain features of the Universe and of living things better explained by an intelligent cause than the undirected process of natural selection?

The same critics claim that ID has been morphed from Creationism, ignoring the significant differences between the two. Creationism takes the findings of Science and attempts to make sense of them through religious texts. The theory of ID is the effort to empirically detect whether the apparent design in nature, which is acknowledged by literally all biologists, is the product of an intelligent cause or that of evolution. It is a Scientific research program consisting of scientists, philosophers, and other scholars who seek, discover, and explain the designs in nature. 

What is Evolution? Classical Darwinism stood for a range of evolutionary philosophies, both biological and social, which are best summed up by the phrase "survival of the fittest".

In one sense it can be used to describe small changes such as in the size or shape of bird beaks (microevolution). ID is not anti-evolution when considering this use of the term. You would be hard-pressed to find a biologist that would disagree that Evolution occurs on this scale.

On the other hand, alternative uses of the term are an enormous stretch.

The neo-Darwinists assert that our origins are entirely materialistic, resulting from natural selection acting on random mutations; an unpredictable and purposeless process "that has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species", the National Association of Biology Teachers said in a statement.

In other words, Darwinists say that life simply came out of nowhere.

While some of the claims made by the modern day Evolutionary Theory are supported by evidence, there are many which are not and, in all probability, will never be. 

These neo-Darwinists frequently cite the 1953 Stanley Miller and Harold Urey experiment where in the confines of two beakers they were able to recreate a simple pre-biotic environment. With little human help their experiment yielded a number of amino acids. These results sent shockwaves through the scientific community because it was believed to be proof that life, from chemicals alone, could have mutated into the first single cell.

There have been numerous criticisms of this experiment about the assumptions that it made, but especially about the results. 

One of the main criticisms is that it operated under the incorrect assumption that our pre-biotic atmosphere was reductive (this is a term meaning that hydrogen atoms gave up their electrons to promote chemical activity) and would allow for these amino acids to form. Most geochemists assert that the pre-biotic atmosphere was far more neutral than reductive, with very little methane. Since one variable in this experiment was wrong, the results are likely to be wrong as well.

David Berlinski, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, explained, "Until recently, the chemically unforthcoming nature of the early atmosphere remained an embarrassing secret among evolutionary biologists, like an uncle known privately to dress in women's underwear; if biologists were disposed in public to acknowledge the facts, they did so by remarking that every family has one."

Furthermore, the leap from a few amino acids into larger proteins, and subsequently the leap into a strand of replicable strand of DNA have yet to be observed in the laboratory. The probability that this reproductive strand of DNA could form, completely by chance and without manipulation, from amino acids is incomprehensibly small.

The limitation of the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection and the changes that random mutations can produce are strongly debated. The overwhelming majority of these mutations tend to cause harm, not build complexity. 

At best, the likelihood of a beneficial mutation is miniscule.

Perhaps the most irrefutable argument for Design is found in the DNA molecule itself.

There is no entity in the known universe that stores and processes more information, more efficiently than DNA. The complexity of cells is beyond amazing. They use circuits, miniature motors, feedback loops, encoded language, and error checking machinery that decodes and repair our DNA. Many very reputable Scientists contend that Darwinian evolution is fundamentally incapable of producing this type of complexity.

“DNA is like a computer program, only much more complex than any we’ve ever been able to devise” asserts Bill Gates. It is interesting to note that all of his computer programs are the result of the intelligence that software engineers employ, not the result of totally random number generators, as the Theory of Evolution contends.

Many claim that ID does not qualify to be a Scientific Theory. This is entirely untrue. The simple application of the Scientific Method has displayed this again and again.

There are four steps in the scientific method. 

Step 1 - Observation: 

In the natural world we are able to see the manner in which intelligent agents act. They bear high levels of "complex-specified information" or CSI. 

Step 2 - Hypothesis:

If a natural object were designed, it would contain high levels of CSI. 

Step 3 - Experiment:

Scientists conduct tests on natural objects like biological structures to determine whether or not they contain high levels of CSI. "Irreducible Complexity" is one of the more common and simple forms of CSI to test. By reverse-engineering complex structures, scientists are able to determine whether they need all of their parts in order to function, making them irreducibly complex.

Step 4 - Conclusion:

When natural objects contain high levels of CSI, which is known only to result from intelligence, the conclusion is that they were designed. There is no other known mechanism, not even Darwinian Evolution, that is able to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" objects.

The concept of irreducible complexity was first presented in Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box".

The eye is an example of an irreducibly complex system. In fact, Charles Darwin himself admitted. "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

Many Darwinists would also argue that evidence to support their theory is found in the fossil records. The fact of the matter is that the fossil record lacks intermediate fossils. They have the beginning and the end, with nothing in between. The “missing link” has been a problem for years.

Furthermore, the pattern of the fossil record, as a whole, has sudden explosions of new biological forms. They fail to represent steady patterns for the years of supposed natural selection.

In the geologic column there is a cross section known as the Cambrian layer where a large amount and diversity of life was found. This was dubbed the "Cambrian Explosion". Scientists have estimated that the Cambrian age occurred just over 500 million years ago.

This layer holds virtually every phyla known to man. All major body plans and a vast variety of each are contained in this one cross section of the fossil record. What was discovered in the layers above and below the Cambrian represent an enigma.

Fossils that are found below the Cambrian strata are mostly from soft-bodied organisms such as worms. In the layers above, the number of species fossilized gradually decreases with each successive layer. This is completely opposite of what is suggested by Evolutionary Theory. There is no discernable sequence of evolution at all. 

This discovery has been the cause of great scientific debate. To Charles Darwin, it stood as a stumbling block for his Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

The point is that, frequently, the evidence does not point towards Evolution.

During the last several years, the debate over the origins of life and what should be taught in science classes has exploded into the public and the “Evolution Academic Freedom Act” is representative of that.

It is undeniably important to teach the strengths and weaknesses of the one-sided, pro-evolution, neo-Darwinist theory that is currently taught in all public school biology classrooms. Allowing the critique of its flaws encourages students to think critically. They, in turn, become more educated citizens who are able to distinguish the data and testable theories of science and philosophical claims which are made in the name of Science. This is what the "Evolution Academic Freedom Act" aims to accomplish.

Isn't this the ultimate goal of Science? Scrutiny should always be encouraged, and should always have a place in Science classrooms. Science, without debate, is no different than a dictatorship, and requires no reason at all.

When asking the questions “What are the origins of life and what causes its diversity?”

Whether you believe our origins to be from design or chance, it is impossible to avoid an answer without faith-based implications. It is often said that ID is faith based or requires “blind faith”.

However, combining the shortcomings Darwinist Evolution with the overwhelming evidence to support Intelligent Design, it is arguable that it takes far more faith to believe that our origins were purely coincidental and derived from nothing, than to believe that life was intelligently designed.