An open letter to science teachers from Lee Turnpenny and Michael Carroll

Recently, a nascent Christian organisation, absurdly named ‘Truth in Science’,(1) distributed glossy paraphernalia to the science departments of UK secondary schools and sixth form colleges.

The material promotes so-called Intelligent Design (ID), advocating its inclusion as an alternative to evolution in science lessons. To date, this marketing ploy has apparently proven effective in persuading at least 59 schools of its scientific worthiness.

Tactics

Creationist ideals are being propagated in some of the increasing number of faith schools, which already constitute a third of our education system, a perfectly legal consequence of the non-separation of church and state. Moreover, the decline in the actual proportion of graduates with science and maths degrees is happening at a time when religious politics are increasingly in the public consciousness. And now Truth in Science positions itself as arbiter of what should be taught in all science classes.

Truth in Science’s tactics conform to the declared ‘wedge strategy’ of the politically and media-savvy ID movement: the objective of equal time in school classrooms as the basis for attacking scientific materialism. The ensuing ‘scientific’ controversy is ripe media fodder, perpetuated by a limited number of pro-ID scientists who, first and foremost, happen to be committed theists. The publicity generated affords ID undue credibility as an alternative scientific explanation in a supposedly balanced debate on evolution.

No evidence

This might seem a noble enough venture and it is good to be sceptical; after all, evolution cannot answer all questions on the history of life, can it? ID proposes that evolution is deficient in its account of gaps in the fossil record, and what it considers the ‘irreducible complexity’ of certain natural structures (the eye and the bacterial flagellum being pet examples). However, whether or not you accept this charge, defaulting to an unexplained ‘designer’ (by implication, ‘God’) does not constitute a scientific alternative because it fails on one fundamental requirement – evidence! You don’t have to believe evolution; but refutation requires evidence for a plausible alternative argument.

Scepticism, then, should consider why ID advocates have none to proffer.

Any attempt to dislodge a scientific paradigm like evolution has first to demonstrate the same explanatory power. Consider whether ID accounts for the extinction of over 95 per cent of species that have ever inhabited the earth; and the numerous imperfections that afflict extant living organisms (and yes, that includes human beings). Any intelligent designer would surely not engineer bodies that carry built-in flaws – it would indicate a deficient, imperfect intelligence.

This is where ID backfires: an attempt to blend evolution with occasional supernatural intervention is a resort to discredited ‘God of the Gaps’-style theology, rejected by the majority of thinking religious people. Don’t be misled by supposed distinctions, as recently advocated by Rachel Ankeny in this magazine.(2) ID is merely creationism in its latest guise. As such, it is not only pseudoscience, but also shallow religion (and consequently has no legitimate place in religious education classrooms either).

Ignorance fosters barbarity

Darwin bequeathed us the fabric connecting all biological diversity, from bacteria to the nature of human consciousness. There is no other valid scientific explanation for how species emerge. Read that again – no other scientific explanation. If your school insists on teaching ID, then it should at least be obligated to scrutinise it with the rigour of scientific analysis, whereupon its flaws will become evident, and you can then point out exactly what is going on. Teachers, do your homework!(3)

Responsible education requires conveying the importance of how to think. Rachel Ankeny suggests ID opponents assume a general lay non-appreciation of what science is. However, it is Truth in Science and the ID movement who exploit both the assumption that the lay public is too stupid to recognise pseudoscience, and its susceptibility to marketing ruses. We should not assume that religious groups who foster their image as bastions of moral integrity would never resort to such strategies.

Be wary of the pontificating of those who yearn for a return to what they paint as a more pastoral world. On the contrary, promoting ignorance fosters medieval barbarity. Creationism and ID are not just Christian ideals, but appeal to fundamentalists of other faiths. It is now plausible that, by virtue of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, the teaching of evolution is under threat from zealots who may be able to claim their beliefs are being illegally offended.

Now, more than ever, public scientific awareness is essential. Truth in Science and the Intelligent Design movement, while posturing as science, are underhandedly marketing a faith position.

References

1.Truth in Science website 
2. R. Ankeny, Science & Public Affairs December 2006
3. For a useful information resource, see the British Centre for Science Education (BCSE) website

Dr Lee Turnpenny and Dr Michael Carroll are in the Human Genetics Division and Centre for Human Development, Stem Cells & Regeneration, at the University of Southampton