For what can be known about God is perfectly plain...since God himself has made it plain. Ever since God created the world, his everlasting power and deity-however invisible-have been there for the mind to see in the things he has made” (Rom 1:19–20). Doubtless many believers over the centuries have found Paul’s intuition obvious. Immanuel Kant, no fan of proofs for the existence of God, says he was still moved by the argument from design. Even the nonbeliever has to be impressed at least with the beautiful symmetry of snowflakes or of the nautilus. With the long history of interest in intelligent design then, what is the problem with “intelligent design” (ID)? The answer is rather complex, as it always is in dealing with an appealingly simple but misleading claim. Unsurprisingly, extremists on both sides of this controversy want to make it simple. One side holds that an underlying purpose of modern science, evolutionary theory in particular, has been to discredit religion and replace it with a “secular outlook.” Extremists on the other side are only too ready to accept the charge.

The debate over intelligent design has been playing out recently in a Pennsylvania courtroom, where a group of parents are seeking to remove ID from their local school’s curriculum. Testifying before the court in September, Georgetown University professor John F. Haught said that intelligent design is very similar to creationism and should be taught as religion, not science. (Commonweal readers are familiar with Haught’s writings on science and religion—see “Darwin & the Cardinal,” August 12.) This is an important point. I suspect that many people do not realize that intelligent design is simply a new label for creationism. But many who find the theory of creationism unpersuasive may harbor a residual sympathy for the simplicity of ID’s appeal. Unfortunately, it has led people to support, or at least sympathize with, the creationists’ practical (and political) agenda for getting a place in science courses in the schools. That sympathy is misplaced.

It is true that we appeal to design in our ordinary experience and even in science. Anthropologists argue to past human activity from the meager evidence of flaked pieces of rock. But we have a vast repertory of knowledge about what does or does not reflect human activity; and this allows for empirical tests. There is nothing comparable for the claim of a universal designer. Moreover, unlike the classical “argument from design,” ID does not argue from evidence in the world to a creator, but like creationism, it takes the existence of God for granted and argues mainly that the evidence for evolution is either false or misinterpreted.

There is no doubt that proponents of ID have hit upon a clever campaign. Intelligent design appeals, as creationism does, to religious feelings but, I think, to a wider base; it also promises an empirical setting. More important, it carries over the “fairness” arguments that have been especially effective in garnering support for creationism’s campaign for a place in biology courses. Shouldn’t students learning about evolution hear “the other side”? And isn’t it part of good science to discuss “alternative hypotheses”?

For the creationist, intelligent design is simply an alternative scientific hypothesis. This allows the critic of evolution an interesting fallback position: “Admittedly, your theory provides highly developed and sophisticated explanations, but our alternative also deserves to be heard.” Here again, the claim is presented as “simple” common sense: “Doesn’t sound science require the examination of alternative hypotheses?” The correct answer to that is yes and no. Briefly put, a hypothesis must meet certain criteria to qualify as a scientific contender. It is crucial, moreover, that the determination of these criteria has to be completed before the hypothesis can be counted as a serious part of the scientific enterprise.

One might object: “Doesn’t an honest scientific approach require then that we examine the credentials of ID/creationism?” Yes indeed; but here fairness is not the deciding issue, science is. So, if you want to reach an informed opinion, you have to read about the hard scientific work reflected in books by scientists like Phillip Kitcher (Abusing Science: The Case against Creationism), and Kenneth R. Miller, a serious Catholic (Finding Darwin’s God). They argue that if ID/creationism is taken as science it is very bad science indeed. About that, almost the entire body of expert opinion in biology agrees.

Were IDers/creationists willing to admit that “the other side” is not a scientific alternative, the case would be different. There are, after all, many important areas of discussion that fall outside the purview of science: most issues about value are not scientific. For example, there are moral considerations about the use of embryos in obtaining stem cells for research. They deserve to be debated, but they do not count as alternative scientific hypotheses.

One such topic that is eminently worthy of serious discussion is the relation of religion and science. It has no easy resolution, and perhaps each generation must take it up anew. If it belongs in the high-school curriculum at all, the place for it is not in science courses; it might at best be fitted under social studies. Of course, since fairness requires the presentation of “alternative hypotheses” if ID is to be prominent here, such a class might also explore alternative ways of interpreting Scripture. Even a fairly conservative approach to interpreting Scripture could allow that, while an argument from design is not a scientific proof, it need not be inconsistent with science. A God for whom “one day is as a thousand years” is not likely to be in a hurry to accomplish the divine purposes for this world or to be limited in the ways of going about that. We know from history that, while controversies about religion and science have been violently contested, often with tragic results, once both sides were carefully stated, many cases that seemed at first to be clear contradictions were ultimately understood to be compatible.

My concern here has been not with the scientific details but with what I think has been a largely neglected fallacy: the idea that, without doing the necessary work, but simply on the “commonsense” grounds of the appeal of naive design arguments and misleading “fairness” claims, one can take a reasonable position—more important, cast a responsible vote—beforehand on the question of what should be taught in biology classes. This article is not likely to put those fallacies to rest, but perhaps it can emphasize the practical importance of putting intelligent design in a context of intelligent discussion. For the issues that I think fuel the current controversy are broader than ID and need to be made explicit.

The current public support for teaching creationism in the schools reflects, I think, a widespread belief, perhaps conservative but not necessarily extremist, that religion has increasingly been disadvantaged in our social and political life. Antireligious statements made by critics of ID are unhelpful here. I recommend Kitcher and Miller because, along with many others, they make it clear that their criticisms are not an attack on religion as such.

Still, conservative Christians are not being irrational if they suspect that the modern accommodation of science and religion consists of religion giving way whenever there is apparent conflict. But they are misled if they think the solution is to promote the scientific credentials of religion. On scientific grounds, science will (and should) always win. The problem lies not with science but with a false corollary: there is no objectivity possible outside of science, so religion belongs with myths and legends, dealing merely in stories, metaphors, and subjective feelings. The refutation of the scientific pretensions of ID is not likely to satisfy this underlying concern. For that, we need also to bring up to date the public discourse about such perennial issues as the role of religion in society, the teaching of values in the schools, and the relation of religion and science. Accepting the scientific challenge is to the great credit of Catholic scientists like Miller. But there is further work to be done.