Why Not Debate "Intelligent Design" in Schools? Here's Why

In this column titled "Who's Afraid of Intelligent Design?" in today's WaPo, education writer Jay Mathews sounds sweetly reasonable when he asks, "Why not enliven [classes on evolution] with a student debate on contrasting theories? Why not have an intelligent design advocate stop by to be interrogated? Many students, like me, find it hard to understand evolutionary theory, and the scientific method itself, until they are illuminated by contrasting points of view."

Sounds good, and if such a debate were moderated by a biology teacher with a strong grasp of all the relevant data, including detailed knowledge of the most common factual distortions employed by advocates of "intelligent design," it could even be a powerful teaching tool. (No, it wouldn't suffice to have a moderator with a good, basic knowledge of Darwinian theory. As debunkers of pseudo-science like Martin Gardner and James Randi have often demonstrated, innocent scientists who assume that everyone is an honest, disinterested truth-seeker like themselves are easily deceived by clever bunco artists--hence the distinguished physicists who've been taken in by phony mediums and sleight-of-hand tricksters like Uri Geller.)

But of course the number of high school teachers in America who are truly prepared to manage such a confrontation is minuscule. And let's consider again the underlying premise that truth is best revealed through debate. If it's true, why is it that no other topic is taught that way? Social studies teachers don't invite royalists, communists, or neo-Nazis to present alternative views on American government. Health teachers don't invite guest speakers who believe that childhood immunizations are dangerous, that water fluoridation is a deadly government plot, or that AIDS was invented by the CIA. (Imagine the public reaction if they did.)

There's only one reason why the advocates of "intelligent design" want to launch this new teaching technique, and that's because they are desperate to get an official imprimatur for their non-scientific doctrine as a valid alternative to evolution.

And would the creationists be satisfied with an hour devoted to debating their point of view? We all know the answer. School boards would have to brace for the next wave of letters: "My daughter told me that her biology class spent four days on evolution, and only one hour debating intelligent design. This is outrageously biased. Unless you give equal time to the Christian alternative, I'm prepared to sue . . ."