An utterly hopeless muddle

There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
– Charles Robert Darwin, The Origin of Species

Charles Darwin had it all figured out. He had reached a new conclusion; a theory of evolution that would, when published in 1859, change the way human beings understood life on Earth. Yet, he could never reconcile the origins of species as he saw it with his faith. On Nov. 25, 1860, he wrote to botanist and colleague Asa Gray: “I am conscious that I am in an utterly hopeless muddle. I cannot think that the world as we see it, is the result of chance; and yet I cannot look at each separate thing as the result of design … Again, I say I am, and shall ever remain, in a hopeless muddle.”
One hundred and forty-six years later the debate on evolution continues. Indeed, the issue has become even more muddled since intelligent design entered the fray. Intelligent design is a theory that complex biological structures show evidence of having been designed, as opposed to happening through a long series of trials and errors. Components in nature are so intricate and interdependent that they cannot be explained by Darwin's evolution theory. Intelligent design differs from creationism in that it does not rely on a strict biblical interpretation of creation as described in Genesis.
In 1996, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, wrote a book that pushed the issue. In Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Michael J. Behe presented a scientific argument for the existence of God. Behe is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington, the main organization to which most of the scientists and theorists supporting intelligent design belong. In his book, he discussed the implications for neo-Darwinism of what he calls “irreducibly complex” biochemical systems.
He writes: “By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly . by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.” Behe is among a growing group of accomplished scientists in the U.S. and Canada who are compiling, in the scientific manner in which they've been trained, a body of evidence in support of intelligent design.
Denyse O'Leary became interested in the issue of intelligent design in 1996. She ultimately quit her job as a book editor in order to write By Design or by Chance? The Growing Controversy On the Origins of Life in the Universe. O'Leary, a science and faith journalist, is a Roman Catholic who attends Holy Family Church in Toronto. “I'm not required to believe that evolution did or did not happen,” she says. “My own view as a Christian is that there is indeed a divine mind and that is a real factor in the creation of the universe. There is reasonable evidence for my position. I can defend it by pointing to evidence, to science and not just by saying the Bible says it's so.”
She suggests that there are two possibilities for the creation of the universe. The first is that “there are zillions of flopped universes out there and ours is an accidental success.” The second is that our universe is a success because it was designed that way. “The only thing that would back up a materialist point of view is zillions of flopped universes. It is just as reasonable for me to believe that it was all fine-tuned because our universe is all fine-tuned.”
O'Leary is careful to add that she does not think that, at this time, intelligent design should be taught in high school biology classes-unless students want to talk about it. She points to the example of the Discovery Institute. “They don't believe it should be taught in high school. They constantly speak out against it, legitimately and genuinely.”
In fact, the Institute's position is a little more complex. In January 2006, a California high school withdrew an elective class titled Philosophy of Design after an attorney for the Institute testified before the El Tejon Unified School District and asked that the class be cancelled. In a statement, the lawyer-Casey Luksin-said: “While we are pleased by the outcome in this case, we continue to believe that teaching objectively about intelligent design is permissible in public school science classes and is certainly acceptable for philosophy or social studies courses.” He adds that the Institute offered to “work with the district and with Americans United to create a philosophy course on origins which people on all sides agree would be acceptable and that they could re-teach next year.” The Institute's concern about the elective class in California was that the course was actually misrepresenting the theory.

While the majority of Canada's education ministries don't have a formal policy regarding intelligent design, in the late 1990s the Ministry of Education in British Columbia confirmed a strong stand on the issue for their public schools. “Concern may be expressed by some students and parents because the evolutionary perspective of modern biology conflicts with personal religious beliefs,” reads an integrated curriculum resource for teachers entitled Course Requirements Respecting Beliefs.
“Teachers should respect these religious beliefs; however, because religious beliefs and views flowing from religious beliefs on these matters are not derived from the discipline of biological science, teachers should refrain from providing instruction in or requiring discussion on these beliefs. Under no circumstances may a teacher as part of a science course provide instruction in a religious dogma or religious belief system.”

The curriculum package further identifies the beliefs or viewpoints as anything commonly characterized as creationism, theory of divine creation, intelligent design theory or other theories based on religious beliefs. Indeed, religious instruction in schools has been prohibited in B.C. public schools since 1865. An individual school district, however, may choose to develop a comparative religions course as an elective for its students.
“It doesn't become so much of an issue for us but it does come up from time to time,” says Lori Abbott, a spokesperson for the Toronto District School Board, the largest public school board in Canada. “From our point of view, we wouldn't shy away from a discussion if it came up in class.”
The issue of intelligent design caught fire recently in the United States when, in October 2004, the Dover Area School District in Pennsylvania voted to become the first to require that this theory be taught alongside evolution in high school biology classes. Teachers were told to read a four-paragraph statement to students that stated, “Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence.. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view.”
Seven parents (four of whom had children in high school) and a former high school science teacher in the Dover area filed a lawsuit in December 2004, challenging the constitutional validity of the board's action. “It is contended that the ID [intelligent design] policy constitutes an establishment of religion prohibited by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,” read court files in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
In December 2005, a U.S. district judge ruled in favour of the parents, saying not only does the policy of teaching intelligent design violate the Constitution but that it amounts to teaching a secular version of creationism and should be struck down “to preserve the separation of church and state.”
Dr. Brian Alters holds the Tomlinson Chair in science education at McGill University in Montreal. The founder and director of McGill's evolution and education research centre, Alters was also one of the six expert witnesses called by the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller v. Dover. “The school was advocating that this was good pedagogy. That alternate scientific theories increases critical thinking and it is good for the students to do this,” Alters explains. “Critical thinking is a noble goal. In a science classroom, you do that by comparing science to science. Intelligent design is not science. Scientists do not say, 'Well, we can't figure out a natural cause so we might as well chalk it up to a higher being or some extraterrestrial.' That's a terrible thing to do to students.”
Alters, the author of Defending Evolution: A Guide to the Evolution/Creation Controversy, explains that the centralized education system in Canada has helped stem the tide of intelligent design in classrooms. While the U.S. has approximately 15,000 school districts (officials are elected to the boards) that are essentially autonomous, Canada relies on provincial ministries of education that determine curricula. That does not mean, however, that it is not an issue here. There is a trend among science teachers that deeply worries Alters. “What's bothering us most at the evolution centre is to hear teachers say, 'I don't like this debate. I didn't go into teaching to get into a cultural war so I'm going to de-emphasize evolution.'”
David Begun is a paleoanthropologist whose research focuses on great ape and human origins. A professor at the University of Toronto, Begun has made a point of raising the issue of intelligent design in his first year seminar course in order to illustrate the difference between biology, social science and humanities. “Many students are surprised or confused that this is an issue,” he says. “Origin stories are social anthropological phenomena and have nothing to do with science. Intelligent design is a fairly sneaky way to introduce faith-based origins into a science curriculum.”

It is possible for science and faith to cohabitate peacefully, says Begun. Many scientists explore faith from a personal perspective, but when they're wearing their lab coats, scientists must be, first and foremost, scientists. “We want to be free to practice our discipline. There are very few scientists who would tell religious scholars how to do their job. We don't want the religious community to tell us how to do ours.”
Begun also believes that another element lurks beneath the surface in this debate. “In the U.S., there is a fundamentalist Christian political movement that seeks to influence policy at the highest levels. That is not part of the political agenda in Canada.”
But it is in the United States, where President George Bush announced intelligent design should be taught in schools-though the decision should rest with school districts rather than the federal government. “Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,” Bush told Texas newspaper reporters in an interview. While proponents of intelligent design were overjoyed with the president's statement, evolutionary theorists and scientists were incensed. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called his comments “irresponsible.”
As the issue of teaching the theory of evolution in American schools became more and more heated, the Office of Theology and Worship at the Presbyterian Church (USA) released a theological statement on intelligent design, creationism and evolution. “Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith, nor our Catechisms teach the Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory,” reads the statement. “Nowhere is the process by which God made, created or formed man set out in scientific terms. A description of this process in its physical aspects is a matter of natural science. The Bible is not a book of science.”
The Church asks Christians to deal seriously with scientific findings and insists that the theory of evolution does not fall within the purview of the Permanent Theological Committee. “The real and only issue,” the Church states, “is whether there exists clear incompatibility between evolution and the Biblical doctrine of Creation. Unless it is clearly necessary to uphold a basic Biblical doctrine, the Church is not called upon and should carefully refrain from either affirming or denying the theory of evolution.”
In 1998, the church's Presbyterian Panel surveyed a number of its 2.4 million members on the issue of science, technology and the Christian faith. The results were overwhelming: 99 per cent of pastors and 96 per cent of elders and members believe that the universe came into being through the agency of God. Though American Presbyterians are clearly creationists to an extent, the majority of specialized clergy, pastors, elders and members think that evolutionary theory is “compatible with the idea of God as Creator.” When the survey narrowed in on the idea of human beings developing from earlier species of animals, however, 53 per cent of members disagreed.

This is an excerpt of the PC(USA) survey Science, Technology and the Christian Faith.
The universe was created by God
Pastors – 99% agreed
Specialized clergy – 97% agreed
Elders & Members – 96% agreed

The universe is less than 10,000 years old
Pastors – 4% agreed
Specialized clergy – 2% agreed
Elders – 4% agreed
Members – 5% agreed

The universe began with a huge explosion (The Big Bang theory)
Pastors – 69% agreed
Specialized clergy – 72% agreed
Elders – 47% agreed
Members – 43% agreed

Evolutionary theory is compatible with the idea of God as Creator
Pastors – 85% agreed
Specialized clergy – 91% agreed
Elders – 67% agreed
Members – 61% agreed

Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals
Pastors – 38% disagreed
Specialized clergy – 26% disagreed
Elders – 51% disagreed
Members – 53% disagreed

Clearly, from these results, Presbyterians have no more insight into this complex issue than Darwin. With so much evidence for both sides of the intelligent design v. evolution debate, it is difficult to muddle through the mess and find answers. But, as a scientist who is also a biblical literalist once said to Alters, “I don't know how it works. I'm only a feeble human. But when I die, it's the first question I will ask God.”