STEPHEN ROESLER
Staff Writer
Former Pepperdine Professor Ben Stein’s controversial film, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” scheduled for release in early April, explores the complex topic of Intelligent Design (ID) and the role it plays in academia. Stein, who wrote and stars in the film, finds numerous examples of professors who are being denied tenure and publishing rights for subscribing to, or merely considering, the idea of Intelligent Design. Ironically, most Pepperdine biology professors disagree with Stein’s conclusion.
Intelligent Design, at its most basic form, suggests that an unseen force, namely a creator, developed humanity. In short, ID claims that life is far too complex to explain without including a creator.
Although Pepperdine remains rooted in the Christian faith, the idea of Intelligent Design remains harshly criticized by those in the Natural Science Division.
“Intelligent Design is not a science and shouldn’t be taught in a science course,” said Dr. Rodney Honeycutt, professor of Biology.
A researcher for the National Science Foundation, Honeycutt adds that ID is “just a rough for teaching creationism on an equal footing as science, and it’s specifically directed at Darwin.”
Honeycutt remains vehemently against ID in a science class because it remains outside the realm of testable evidence.
“We have a protocol for how to address questions empirically,” Honeycutt said. “Science is unable to explain natural phenomenon.”
Dr. Stephen Davis, a distinguished professor of Biology and this year’s winner of the Robert Foster Cherry Award for Great Teaching, maintains that the effort to include ID in the class was simply a legal maneuver to incorporate religion in the classroom. He therefore considered the idea flawed and claims “it’s unethical, it’s dishonest, it was flawed from the very beginning.”
The legal maneuvering, Davis said, was an attempt to advocate for religion in Pennsylvania schools. United States District Judge John E. Jones ruled ID unconstitutional in schools by explaining it violated the separation of church and state while attempting to proselytize.
While Davis and Honeycutt fervently oppose ID in the classroom, Professor of Law Ed Larson maintains that discussion of ID could potentially complement other topics and further the process of education.
“The idea of design in nature is a perfectly respectable concept that can very profitably be discussed in philosophy and different social sciences,” said Larson, a Pulitzer Prize winner for his novel, “Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Debate over Science and Religion.”
Although Larson admits that ID does not exactly fit the definition of science, he holds that if discussion on the topic of ID intends for a pedagogical purpose, it maintains no legal problems.
“That doesn’t mean that there may not be supernatural explanations for physical phenomenon — it’s just not science,” Larson said. “As long as that distinction is made, I personally see no reason why you can’t discuss it as long as you don’t proselytize.”
While most consider ID disassociated with science, Dr. Jeffery Jasperse, an associate professor of sports medicine, argues that at a Christian school, students should understand the basis of ID and its connection to the Christian faith.
Jasperse, also a physiology and anatomy professor, spends roughly four hours per semester devoted to discussing ID while allowing students to direct conversation and inquiry on the touchy topic, he said. He understands that science tends to explain processes on microscopic levels, while ignoring the bigger picture. In his opinion, this should remain the core of the class.
Christopher Doran, professor of Religion, spends his class devoted to the big picture. His class, “Conversations at the Intersection of Theology and Science,” explores the interaction between science and theology, wherein he identifies its weakness, specifically in a theological setting. He considers the theological and scientific aspect flawed.
“ID is bad science and even prominent ID folks recognize if it was a scientific program it has significant shortcomings,” he said.
Doran also explains the inconsistencies between the claims of ID and the Christian God. Finding problems throughout, Doran still sees the importance of devoting much of his class to the trying subject because the fundamentals assume a higher power. Furthermore, some critics of evolution ask how a person of faith could denounce ID. More specifically, how could Davis or Honeycutt, in their Christian faith, deem ID flawed, inaccurate or not scientific?
“I believe in creation,” Davis said.
He said he also believes in a form of Intelligent Design, but does not want that belief associated with legal attempts to railroading religion into education.
Davis said the baggage associated with Intelligent Design is unfortunate.
“It confuses and it inserts wedges that are not justified,” he said. “It inserts a wedge that separates science from religion and right now we don’t need that, in fact, we need it less now than maybe ever before.”
Central to the theory of ID remains the idea of what scientists refer to as “irreducible complexity.” The idea assumes that the cell, comprised of many complex, working parts, cannot function if one of those parts is removed. In short, irreducible complexity demonstrates that biological systems did not evolve naturally.
Irreducible complexity, which has since been critiqued and unaccepted by many scientists, functions as the crux of creationism. The idea, in one sense, allows people to prove “God” or “faith” — it qualifies as a “God of the Gaps” theory.
“What if you really believe that the flagellum, being irreducible, is the foundation of your Christian faith, and what if someone reduces it?” Honeycutt asked. “Are you willing to test your faith on the flagellum being irreducible?”
Across the board, the topic of ID remains inherently connected to some kind of faith, saturating the subject with emotion and confusion for the general public. As Honeycutt understands, ID causes people to overstep their bounds. For example, he said he believes people of the Christian community attempt to make ID a “science” to prove their beliefs. “Christians are overstepping their area, they have no scientific basis,” he said.
But, Stein maintains a different point of view in his upcoming documentary.
“We’re not, by any means, certain that Intelligent Design is the answer,” Stein said. “We just want free speech.”
02-21-2008
