The Theory of Intelligent Design
and
Teaching It in Science Classes of Public High Schools

 by Raymond Fontaine, Ph.D. - November 2005

E-mail no.15: I Suggest Papal Silence for Now.

   Good evening, your Holiness. I assume that I am reaching you in your private chambers, ready to discuss the above topics. I greatly appreciate your open-mindedness and truthfulness. As you know, you can count on mine.

   Last evening, on November 10, Pat Robertson, a prominent religious leader, blundered badly during a news broadcast related to Intelligent Design being taught in science classes of public high schools. Later, I read on the Internet that three scientists asked you to reaffirm the teaching of the church on this matter.

   Your papal infallibility may not extend to such statements. In that case, being human you too could err. This is slippery matter. My esteem for you compels me to help prevent a possible misstep.

   As you know, the U.S. constitution mandates the separation of church and state in government buildings, including public high schools. Therefore, God and religious doctrines cannot be taught in their science classrooms and the federal courts have banned the doctrine of Creationism which teaches the literal biblical account of creation. 

    The theory of Evolution, however, ignores God altogether. It states that living things change and adapt in response to their environment. To explain that phenomenon, God is not needed.

    But many scientists are now saying that the theory of evolution does not adequately explain the intricate and marvelous structures or designs in nature, such as DNA. These phenomena required Intelligence at their origin - not just primeval dust.

    What this Intelligence is, where it is, how it operates the scientists do not know. They don't venture a description of this Intelligence. It IS and it is responsible for nature's designs. The theory of Intelligent Design says nothing more. 

    Since this theory mentions only intelligence and not God at the origin of nature, eight members of the school staff in Dover, Pennsylvania voted that the science teachers in their high school should inform the students about the theory of Intelligent Design. Like the scientists advocating this theory, the teachers should not identify the intelligence at the origin of nature with God.

    The residents of Dover, for whatever reason, voted those eight members out of office on November eight. Evidently the voters thought that the teachers could not avoid all slips of the tongue if students asked, "Isn't that intelligence of nature none other than God?" 

    This decision of the Dover voters roused the religious broadcaster, Pat Robertson. Just as the ancient prophet Micah predicted the destruction of Jerusalem for the misdeeds of the people, so did Pat Robertson warn the residents of Dover. He said that disaster may strike there because the residents "voted God out of your city" by ousting the school board members who favored teaching Intelligent Design in the science class. Pat Robertson added, "I'd like to say to the good people of Dover: If there is disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city."

    By saying that over the airwaves, Pat Robertson played into the hands of the critics of Intelligent Design who say that this theory is simply a ploy to get God back into the classroom. Instead of boosting the supporters of Intelligent Design, Pat Robertson helped its enemies. That was a faux pas.

    Your Holiness, I read on the Internet that you have have not yet done what the scientists asked of you: namely to reaffirm publicly the church's stand on the theory of Intelligent Design. 

    If you should consult me on the matter, I would say that your endorsement of Intelligent Design should be a big boost for the theory. But I would suggest that you postpone your public support of the theory until after January 2006. That is when the judge in the Dover court will render judgment to allow or disallow the teaching of I.D. in the science classes of that city.

    Until then, nothing must be said publicly that could be interpreted as trying to influence the judge in his decision. The people would not like that, nor would the judge. That alone might turn him against approving the teaching of I.D. in science classes. Please do not upset the applecart. Pat Robertson has done enough damage. The people of Dover don't need more. In January, after the judge reveals his decision whether for or against allowing I.D. in the classroom, the supporters of the theory would greatly appreciate hearing from you. I am confident that, like me, you also would be supportive of the theory. Adios, my good friend. Ray.

E-mail no.16: The Pope Agrees with Me.

    Thank you for the e-mail about the theory of Intelligent Design. You clearly distinguished the two different issues: firstly, the validity of the theory itself and secondly, the legitimacy of teaching it to high school students in the science classrooms of public high schools. In both cases, however, the theory simply states that the intricate designs in nature presuppose intelligence. The theory does not identify that intelligence with God. Nor should it attempt to provide information about the nature and operation and location of that intelligence. Scientists stop there and so should all thoughtful adults.

    However, the teachers and students in public high schools may find it hard not to speculate further. They may want to say and hear more about that intelligence. Who could prevent and control those unscientific ramblings? 

    Many believe that it's more prudent to keep Intelligent Design out of the classroom altogether. While understanding their concern, I don't agree with them. The truth is not the enemy of God. It won't harm teenagers. All have the right to hear the truth. Humans must hear the truth and learn to live with it.

    I have been thinking of writing an encyclical on the subject. But I'm so very busy with church matters that I could use some help. How about trying your hand at writing the first draft of this encyclical. If you still remember the Latin that you learned in the seminary, you could use it here. That would increase security. The cardinals at the Vatican might be furious with you and perhaps with me. But I can take the heat if you can. Is that a deal? Let me know before January.  Your friend, Ben.   To  return to the list of e-mails, click here.