Perspectives

The Michigan State Board of Education approved new guidelines that give evolutionary theory a license to be taught in high schools as science, but limit intelligent design theory to comparative religion or current events classes. Though Michigan is a perennially liberal state, this is not a particularly liberal stance on the issue. Often conservatives make a case that intelligent design theory ought to be taught alongside evolutionary theory in science classes, claiming that it classifies as "science" as well as evolutionary theory does, citing that hypotheses gleaned from either are equally unfalsifiable. This notion seems completely insane.

Evolutionary theory is admittedly untestable, but what ground does it being labeled "science"give for any number of crazy claims or theories to be considered equal? Though the claim that life forms change according to genetic natural selection can't be tested, neither can the claim that invisible pixies are responsible for the phenomena that we typically attribute to insensible forces of gravity. That doesn't, however, mean that both theories are of equal epistemic value.

The theory of evolution does a lot to explain the way that the world works. Though it is untestable, it does have certain explanatory virtues, and is thus unrivaled as far as alternative theories go. That is to say, it is metaphysically minimal, provides adequate explanation for the phenomena that we observe, and is both deductively and inductively coherent. It's the best answer that science has at the moment to certain questions about the way that life perpetuates and develops. Philosophy of science has evolved beyond Popper's falsifiability criteria, and those that push for intelligent design theory to be taught should pay close attention to that fact.

This is all without addressing the fact that the two views aren't mutually exclusive. It is not inconsistent to believe that evolutionary theory is accurate while also holding to the claim that the world was created and directed (if only at the moment of creation) by a perfect, all-knowing entity. The problem, however, is that the two theories answer fundamentally different questions.

Evolutionary theory (macro or micro) answers the question of how it is that life changes and develops over large numbers of generations in order to adapt to environmental pressures. Intelligent design theory makes claims about the metaphysical origin of the universe and all matter. Evolutionary theory makes no such claim, and those that purport that it does are typically those that haven’t given enough careful thought to the distinction between metaphysics and science.

In that regard, it is hard to label intelligent design theory as science, but rather a series of philosophical machinations that justify a metaphysical picture. That doesn't belong in a science class, especially since evolutionary theory is so widely accepted by numerous authorities in the field, while intelligent design is best supported in philosophical texts. It is for these reasons that I agree with the Board's decision to draw a distinction between metaphysics and biology. Moreover, as an American and a Christian, I would prefer that public school teachers leave the subject of God (or whatever you want to call Intelligent Creators) in religion classes if not on the
curb altogether.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/10/10/michigan.science.ap/index.html