The media has had a significant impact on the interpretation of Intelligent Design. This debate is being spoken and written about in a lot of current news. There are several modern court cases including the Dover, Pa school district, and Kansas Board of Education which have brought this debate mainstream. The court decisions on these issues are stained by the same view that the media has had. What kind of effect is the media having on people, both politically and socially, to their understanding of what I.D. is what it really means? The way the media shows these issues tells the American people how to think about them. The issue is that the media has an unclear view which cannot be brought to light. Let me describe here what I actually mean. The debate between evolution and creation has been overshadowed by the debate between intelligent design and creation. It was once about either survival of the fittest through natural selection or simply God put us here in our current form. Now with I.D. there is the scientifically backed theory that something had to start mankind, because some things are simply too complex. Now this is easily confused with creationism as there are people who think the two are exactly the same thing. I.D. is not being explained properly in the media. I.D. is about an intelligence that created mankind, while religion is about the belief on what this intelligence actually was. I.D. proves there was something and religions job is to take this proof and show who that intelligence is. Now, to introduce the reader as to why this issue is so important. The debate on how the universe started is a very important one. This has to be taught in schools and there are arguments happening now over what should be taught and how. Evolution is scientifically backed so currently that is taught in school. However, there is also evidence that we could not have simply evolved that simply, there are some things in live too complex for evolution to account for. This needs to be taught in schools as intelligent design. But, this creates a problem because what other intelligent designer have we ever been introduced to but God. The question here is, is there a way to teach about God and creation in the classroom. Then it brings up the question of a separation of Church and State. The reason that this separation cannot be shaken is because of Aquinas. He wrote as a Catholic Saint and therefore his views cannot be taken as anything other that that. Simply stated, his view has tainted the case for I.D. in our modern age.
Now to introduce the reader to Intelligent Design and what this theory is composed of. The basis of this thought is that mankind had some superior intelligence help design the human race. The main philosopher to prove this theory was St. Thomas Aquinas. He wrote the Five Proofs of God‟s Existence. The first is that something had to put everything in motion. There is potentiality and actuality that must exist in order for anything in the universe to move. (God) is both of these. The second is the nature of efficient cause. There must have been something to begin everything that was already there. The third is about possibility and necessity. There must have been something here that was necessary in order for the possibility of existence to come about. The fourth is taken from gradation of things. Some things are more or less good then others. The ultimate ending of goodness St. Thomas attributes to this God. The last way is from governance of the world. This is the most important point here. There is such an order in the universe that something must have caused it. Aquinas is referring to some power here that began the universe, and not something that actively intervenes. (Kreeft, 1990). The problem is that he was a Christian philosopher and so his thought was connected to a Christian God. Michael J. Behe discovered that there was something known as the bacterial flagellum. This was put together in such a perfect way that it resembles a drive shaft of a mechanical device or car. Something he refers to as irreducible complexity. “I defined an irreducibly complex system as: a single system that is necessarily composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.” There are some pieces that make up life that are so complex that there was no way that they evolved. Something intelligent had to put these together for the purpose of which they were designed for. Behe said „I like to tell people of the flagellum because when they hear of it, they quickly realize that, as Cardinal Ratzinger alluded, it is a machine. It is not just like a machine or analogous to a machine; it is indeed a real machine. And that gives a string indication about where it came from.‟ (Dembski, 2004) The case for this issue is that there needs to be more education on what I.D. actually is. People are misinformed about these issues and that causes more controversy than is necessary. This is because even the people reporting these arguments are not
properly reviewing what the argument is actually about. They are thinking that I.D. is really another way of teaching about God while it really isn‟t. It is simply stating that there has to be something else there but doesn‟t take a stance on any religious belief. I.D. is actually a way to prove the existence of extra-terrestrials. What else is God but a multi-dimensional superior being? If that was to be put on the news there would be a huge backlash and it would not go over well. The point is that how can some imaginary being with no basis but the human mind produce no controversy yet if it was put into scientific statement there would be nothing but arguments. There is a think tank that has been developed by Paul Kurtz. The purpose is to lobby against religion in government affairs and litigate in favor of science based decision making. There was also “Declaration in Defense of Science and Secularism” which was written to accompany the creation of this think tank. “The disdain for science is aggravated by the excessive influence of religious doctrine on our public policy. We cannot hope to convince those in other countries of the dangers of religious fundamentalism when religious fundamentalists influence our policies at home.” (Kaufman, 2006). This shows how religion plays a significant part in our government and there needs to be groups that discuss this issue and try to find ways around it. Several speakers at this meeting had words about the media. They are said to obviously distort scientific conscience in the name of journalistic balance. In their words there is balance given to each side when it is proven that each side of the argument are not balanceable. Lawrence M. Krauss said that the scientific community has done a „poor job‟ of explaining its logic and benefits to the public. He also stated that scientists have a more active roll to play in opposing faith-based governing, which he said the public often rejects one it understands the issues involved. (Kaufman, 2006) Again the scientific community cannot shake the religious views taken here. This issue of religion in politics has significant impact on our society. In the 2004 election white evangelicals and born again Christians made up about 24 percent of all who voted. Of those who voted 70 percent of them voted republican. (Goodstein, 2006). This shows how the religious right does have an influence in politics. They also want God to be taught in school and will use any means necessary to get this done. One way is to distort the scientific theory of Intelligent Design. In Ohio, voters elected all four state
board of education candidates who opposed the teaching of Intelligent Design, and victories like that gave religious liberals cause to proclaim the end of the right‟s dominance of religious voters. “After 2004, people were saying the religious right owns this country now. Far from it. They have networks and the ability to move quickly and to dominate the airwaves, but they do not represent most Americans. Most Americans are pretty moderate people.” (Goodstein, 2006) The case against this is that people are aware of the differences and there is no problem. Everyone understands exactly what the issues are here and they have no question. The reporters know exactly what the argument is about and there is no discussion needed. Some statistics taken here are that 21% those want creationism only taught while only 5% want Intelligent Design taught. (September, 2005). Another poll shows that 14% want both evolution and creationism taught, 11% want evolution and intelligent design, 9% want creationism and intelligent design and 59% want all three of these views taught. In yet another poll only 17% are very familiar with Intelligent Design, 28% are somewhat familiar, 27% are not too familiar, and 25% are not at all familiar. This shows how much people understand this view. Then again in this poll about whether they believe it or not 8% say it is definitely true, 23% say probably true, 22% say probably false and 10% say definitely false. So people believe in a mindcreated God and don‟t believe there is an actual intellectual superior intelligence that exists somewhere in the universe. On one last poll about what should be taught in schools 12% say evolution only, 23% say creation only, and 4% say intelligent design only, then 55% says all three. (iPoll databank). So most of those polled want creationism taught over intelligent design and evolution. Yet if I.D. is so close to religion why is this? At a forum at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California there was a dialogue between science and religion. In a world dangerously charged with ideology, science need to take on an evangelical role, vying with religion as teller of the greatest story ever told. With a rough consensus that the grand stories of evolution by natural selection and the blossoming of the universe from the Big Bang are losing out in the intellectual marketplace, most of the discussion came down to strategy. How can science fight back without appearing to be just one more ideology? “People need to find
meaning and purpose in life,” said Francisco J. Ayala, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine, and a former Roman Catholic Priest. “I don‟t think we want to take that away from them.” Richard Dawkins then stated, “I am utterly fed up with the respect that we – all of us, including the secular among us – are brainwashed into bestowing on religion. Children are systematically taught that there is a higher kind of knowledge which comes from faith, which comes from revelation, which comes from scripture, which comes from tradition, and that it is the equal if not the superior of knowledge that comes from real evidence. Dr. Weinberg described religion like an old aunt. “She tells lies, and she stirs up all sorts of mischief and she‟s getting on, and she may not have that much left in her, bet she was beautiful once. When she‟s gone we may miss her.” (Johnson, 2006) So again religion is stated as something that holds the fabric of our humanity together yet there is no proof. Dover, Pennsylvania made its place on the map in 2005. This was from a high profile case regarding the teaching of evolution in public schools. The U.S. District Court struck down a policy that required students to be introduced to Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution. Judge John Jones of the 3rd U.S. District Court in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, ruled that teaching intelligent design in public school science classrooms amounted to state sponsorship of religion, in violation of the First Amendment. He said, “We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Dover Area School Board amount to a pretext for the Board‟s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom.” The court, “addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.” (Issues and Controversies on File, 2005). In Kansas there were new education standards that had been adopted. The new standards neither required nor prohibited discussion of intelligent design; much of the language used in the standards was similar to that used by intelligent design supporters, and the Kansas decision was seen as a victory for proponents of that concept. Backers of the new standards said that evolution should face scrutiny and argued that exploring alternative viewpoints would be good for students, while critics, including the mainstream scientific community, opposed the standards as unscientific and
harmful to students. (Issues and Controversies on File, 2005) Like I mentioned earlier even the court which has intensely reviewed these issues cannot shake the differences. There was to be an eight hour mini-series on evolution on Idaho Public Television in 2001. This was looked at as a very controversial series because of the content of it. “Our view is that we would broadcast some additional programs to hear what folks in the creationism community are saying,” said the Director of Broadcasting Ron Pisaneschi, “While evolution is clearly the predominant world view, it is not the only world view.” Arguing that all points of view should receive equal time has become antievolutionists latest and most effective approach said Eugene Scott, PhD, executive director of the National Center for Science and Education in Oakland, California, “We tell people yes, be fair, present two views if both views are validly scientific argument. Science isn‟t a democratic process. What we should be teaching in the schools is the consensus of the scientific community.” Discovery Institute founder Phillip Johnson said, “Where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this generates so much continued controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject.” Scientific organizations point out that this seemingly innocuous language is actually a backdoor approach for teaching creationism dressed as science in classrooms. (Senkowsky, 2001) Even PBS has a hard time separating these issues. They wanted to show evolution but the creationism people wanted more and again caused a controversy. In the past few years states and local school districts have had to confront challenges to science education instigated by anti-evolutionist. Part of the reason for this surge of anti-evolution activity is the repackaging of creationism is the less overtly religious form of “intelligent design”, which enjoys the support of a number of prominent, politically conservative groups and individuals. As a result of this activity, the news media have produced miles of copy and hours of television footage in their coverage of evolution and ID. The quality of this reporting varies widely, depending on the media outlet. It is natural to suppose that the designer is God, but ID proponents, mindful of potential constitutional challenges to teaching the idea in the public schools, are adamant that science is incapable of validating that identification. (Rosenhouse,
2006). See here how it is admitted that ID is different from creationism but impossible to put that difference in a way for people to understand. President Bush had this statement about the teaching of evolution and ID in schools. “I said, harking back to my days as my governor… that decision should be made by local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught,” Bush said, according to the White House transcript, which was not officially released. “I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought.” (Simendinger, 2005). This view is because he would like creationism to be taught in schools but that would be a problem because of the separation of church and state. So instead he would like ID to be taught as again the backdoor approach. In conclusion, there is a difference and it needs to be recognized. This is very important to properly teach our youth the proper scientific theories about where we came from. Science has concrete evidence behind it and is a necessary part of education. If something has scientific backing then there is no reason is should not be mentioned. Evolution had that background and was taught. The same should happen with I.D. The problem comes with Aquinas and his views on the issue. The court said how the religious aspect of I.D. cannot be shaken. That is from Aquinas and how strongly he put down into human history the existence of God. If he has not written his five proofs what would have happened then. Suppose that only Behe had been around and this was the proof, would this view had been changed. The answer is most likely no. The religious right will do anything to move God into the classroom. My personal stance is that this is a big issue and will take a long time to resolve. St. Thomas Aquinas was one to write about the undeniable existence of something that started the universe and watched over it. Since he was a Christian monk he has brought that philosophy to modern day. Even though in modern day we understand things different it is still difficult to shake his interpretation of the issue. Religion is about belief and a person‟s person view on the issues. It is possible to have I.D. simply be the truth of the matter and then have a person‟s faith actually interpret what it is. There are many different religions around there so there are a lot of different views to be had. These views are about who the Intelligent Designer is and not about if there is one.
References Dembski, William A. (2004). Uncommon Dissent, Intellectuals who find Darwinism Unconvincing, page 141, Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books Evolution and Creationism Follow-up: Pennsylvania “Intelligent Design” School Policy Struck Down; Kansas Anti-Evolution School Standards Adopted. (2005, December 20). Issues& Controversies on File. Retrieved January 27, 2007, from Issues & Controversies @ Facts.com database. Goodstein, Laurie. (November 9, 2006) “Religious Voting Data Show Some Shift, Observers Say”. P. 7, in The New York Times, Section P; Column 5; National Desk; The 2006 Elections: The Voters. Johnson, George. (November 21, 2006) “A Free-for-All on Science and Religion”, p. 1 in The New York Times, Section F; Column 3; Health & Fitness. Kaufman, Marc. (November 15, 2006) “Think Tank will Promote Thinking: Advocates Want Science, Not Faith, at Core of Public Policy”, The Washington Post, Section; A19. Kreeft, Peter. (1990). “Proofs for the Existence of God”, pages 65-69, in Peter Keeft Summa of the Summa, San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press Rosenhouse, J., & Branch, G. (2006). Media Coverage of “Intelligent Design”. Bioscience, 56(3), 247-252. Retrieved Saturday, January 27, 2007 from the Academic Search Premier database. Senkowsky, S. (2001). Evolution Series Prompts „Equal Time‟ Response. Bioscience, 51(12), 1024. Retrieved Saturday, January 27, 2007 from the Academic Search Premier database. Simendinger, A. (2005). All Politics is Local. National Journal, 37(32), 2528-2528. Retrieved Saturday, January 27, 2007 from the Academic Search Premier database.
Religion and Public Life Poll (July, 2006) VCU Life Sciences Survey (September, 2005) Gallup/CNN/USA Today Poll (August, 2005) Harris Poll (June, 2005) Retrieved Saturday, January 27, 2007 from the iPoll databank.
Intelligent Design And the Media‟s Interpretation
John Doyle Political Science 296W