Intelligent design

Religious theory has no place in science classrooms

Article Published: September 01, 2005

State superintendent takes a strong stand against weakening education standards.

In vowing to keep intelligent design out of California's science classrooms, Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell has lobbed a veritable firebomb into creationists' corner.

But he also has made a reasoned stand on behalf of the integrity of the state's education standards, and for that, he deserves thanks from all those who see the wisdom in keeping science and religion separate.

The proponents of intelligent design, which is the belief that the universe is so complex, and so perfect, that it must have had a divine designer, would like to see it inserted in the science curriculum as an alternative to evolution theory, though no groups as yet have pushed for it in state schools.

Nonetheless, the concept has gotten a bigger push since President Bush's assertion that intelligent design should be taught in public schools. The comment was made regarding a federal case in Harrisburg, Pa., where the school system's allowance of intelligent design theory is in contest.

O'Connell, however, sees such a divergence from scientific inquiry as anathema to academia. And he's right.

As O'Connell notes, natural science is based on the natural world, and scientific method requires "observable facts and retestable hypotheses."

Intelligent design, on the other hand, is based on faith, and does not belong in a science classroom.

But keeping it out of the science lab does not mean banning the concept of intelligent design from history, philosophy or literature clasrooms.

O'Connell's action isn't intended to discredit intelligent design, but to keep it distinct from scientific inquiry.

O'Connell should be commended for bravely upholding that principle.