UI statement on intelligent design not end of discussion

When University of Idaho President Timothy White announced last week that the UI would not allow alternate theories to evolution in science classes, he tapped into an issue with a long, long life.

Evolution went on trial against creationism in 1925, and it’s been on and off the front pages ever since.

But that doesn’t mean it’s cooled off any. White announced in a campuswide memo Thursday that UI would teach evolution in science classes and any alternate theories only in social sciences, philosophy or religion classes. The reaction was swift from supporters and opponents of evolution, as well as those who saw White’s announcement as an infringement on free speech.

“If my boss can tell me, in effect, what the script is, how to read from that script, then I’ve lost my independence as a faculty member,” said David DeWolf, a professor at Gonzaga School of Law who is also a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based organization that supports the study and teaching of intelligent design, the theory that life is too complex to have arisen without a designer.

But among most scientists, professors and researchers, no debate over evolution exists, professors and academics say. What White announced was standard operating procedure at almost all universities – evolution, the consensus view of the scientific community, is taught in biology classes, with theories of creation, design and spirituality fitting into other disciplines.

“In science classes you have to teach science,” said Pat Carter, an associate professor of biology at Washington State University. “Intelligent design is not science, and evolution is. … I think he needed to say that.”

That isn’t necessarily a judgment of intelligent design’s worth, professors say, but of which category of study it belongs in. Science is focused on observable, measurable and repeatable facts – one criterion for a scientific hypothesis is that it must be possible to prove or disprove it. Intelligent design requires inferences that cannot be tested or measured, they say.

“Intelligent design is not taught in any science classroom – period,” said Robert Prusch, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Gonzaga University. “What is unusual in this case is you have a university president who came out and made a statement.”

Others question what harm there is in discussing the possibility of a designing force behind all life. Stephen Barke, a pastor with the WSU campus Christian group Chi Alpha, said he understands that intelligent design is not a scientific theory in the same sense that evolution is and doesn’t think it should be taught as an equal theory.

But he doesn’t think universities should prevent professors from discussing it.

“As far as teaching in the classroom, science is dealing with things that are observable and repeatable,” he said. “When you get to the idea of God, it’s difficult to prove.

“But to tell scientists they can’t teach there’s a possibility of a god who designed the universe is also wrong.”

White, who studied biology as an undergraduate and graduate student, could not be reached this week to comment. He suffered a heart attack early Friday and is recovering in a Spokane hospital.

Bob Zemetra, head of the Faculty Council at UI, said the response from instructors has been mostly positive. Two faculty committees have drafted resolutions in support of the statement.

And UI spokesman Harold Gibson said Friday that White’s announcement was not a ban on any discussion of intelligent design in classrooms, but a statement that it would not be included in science curricula. It doesn’t prevent discussing the matter; it just prevents it being taught as a scientific theory.

“You don’t find a lot of anthropology being taught in an accounting class,” he said.

‘Heretical’ view

Intelligent design essentially argues that Darwin’s theory of species developing slowly, gradually and randomly can’t explain the complexity of some biological mechanisms.

One of those mechanisms cited is the bacterial flagellum – the little whip-like device that bacteria use to move around – and one of the scientists who say the flagellum indicates the presence of an intelligent designer is UI biologist Scott Minnich.

Minnich is scheduled to testify in a Pennsylvania case in which parents are attempting to have intelligent design removed from a high school curriculum. Zemetra said Friday that White’s announcement was intended in part to make sure people knew that Minnich was acting as an individual and not on behalf of the university.

Minnich said Friday he had no idea such an announcement was coming and that he has never taught intelligent design in a classroom – though he’s spoken publicly in support of the theory and is listed by the Discovery Institute as one of a handful of scientists who support intelligent design theory. His testimony in the Pennsylvania case isn’t related to his university work, he said.

“I’m not teaching intelligent design in my class,” he said. “I never have. It’s never been taught before at the university, and I don’t advocate that it be part of the curriculum.”

Minnich scheduled a meeting with White to discuss it Tuesday and said he wants to get clarification on several points, including why White issued the statement when he did and whether it is intended to prevent all discussion of intelligent design in classes.

But Minnich said he’s very aware of the sensitivity of the topic. Over the course of his career as a molecular biologist and professor at UI, he said he’s discussed intelligent design on only a few occasions with students who brought it up.

In those cases, he says, he emphasizes that his view is far outside the consensus – “some view it as heretical.”

A graduate student in microbiology, Randal Fox, agreed Friday that Minnich did not teach intelligent design in his classroom.

Fox said he supports the basis of White’s statement – that only evolution follows the scientific model of testing observable evidence to explain the progression of life. Still, he said, White’s statement gave some faculty members pause.

“Even those who believe the same thing he does … feel he shouldn’t be in a position to define exactly what’s taught,” Fox said.

‘Far from over’

Prusch, the GU dean, said it was common when he taught freshman biology classes to hear from students on the first day of class who were shocked to find evolution taught in a Catholic university.

At WSU, both Carter, the biologist, and Backe, the pastor, say students approach them with questions about the conflicts between religion and science.

All three say such conflicts aren’t inevitable – that science and religious belief are not mutually exclusive.

Barke said he believes in evolution as an explanation for the progression of life, but thinks it’s possible, for instance, that God designed an evolutionary system.

Carter, who is Jewish, said the fact that science doesn’t address the question of the existence of God doesn’t mean it can’t be examined in other ways.

“The thing about intelligent design or any of the creationist ideas is that there’s no science there,” he said. But “I don’t ever want to make somebody be non-religious.”

But peaceful co-existence seems unlikely between evolution and intelligent design. For one thing, intelligent design supporters aggressively dispute portions of Darwinian evolution, and point out what they call problems in evolutionary science.

For another, they say they’re not a creationist movement – the Discovery Institute’s Web site says it is “agnostic” on the question of what kind of a designer is involved, just that life appears to be designed rather than random.

DeWolf, the GU law professor, said, “Can random mutation and natural selection provide a persuasive explanation of how a complex, highly organized system came about? That dialogue is far from over.”

Most scientists do think mutation and natural selection can explain life – that organisms developed their complexity extremely slowly, over billions of years. Carter said that though there may be certain components of evolution about which there are still unknowns, the theory overall is supported by “mountains of evidence” from a hundred years of research, and that thousands of researchers every year do work that provides more support.

Among scientists, he said, there is no debate. But on a political and social scale, there may always be one.

Fox, the UI grad student, said the conflict really only exists at the most extreme ends of the spectrum.

“At one extreme, they say evolution proves there is no God,” he said. “The other extreme is, God proves there is no evolution.

“People jump to one extreme or the other, instead of seeing how different ideas can work together.”