Jonathan Walker/Collegian
Eugenie Scott criticized intelligent design’s place in science class.
Renowned educator Eugenie Scott addressed a full Phillips Auditorium Thursday on the subject of intelligent design and whether or not it belongs in high school science courses. The presentation was sponsored by Hillsdale’s natural sciences division, and more than half of the division’s faculty was present.
Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, opened the presentation asking students, educators and parents to consider, “what should we teach in high school classrooms?”
Scott limited her criticism to intelligent design’s inclusion in high school science courses and did not attack the theory itself. She said research and debate on intelligent design at the college level can be philosophically and theologically beneficial.
Scott claimed most people are as philosophically “illiterate” as they are “scientifically illiterate” and that there is nothing wrong with intelligent design as a philosophical topic.
Before evaluating intelligent design’s legitimacy, Scott explained in detail exactly what is meant by the terms “evolution,” “creation” and “intelligent design” and gave a detailed background of each. She said many Christian students in college discover they had accepted evolution all along without knowing it.
Sophomore Jennette Engle, who is seeking a teaching certificate, said she found Scott’s clarification helpful.
“People often try to argue without actually knowing what they’re talking about,” she said. “They haven’t taken time to find the true definition of evolution.”
Philosophy major Jon Oatess, a junior, said although the outlining of terms was lengthy, it was essential to clearly understand the criticism of intelligent design that followed.
“I think the explanation will do a lot to clean up the debate around here,” he said.
Scott ultimately criticized intelligent design’s inclusion in science courses, asserting it is an offshoot of what she calls the “creation science” movement and, like creation science, has not been subjected to the scientific method or the generations of peer review evolution has faced. She said published research on intelligent design as science is almost nonexistent in academic journals.
Scott advocated teaching the theory of evolution, calling the movement to push creationism in science classrooms and textbooks as “fundamentally religious” and “sectarian.”
“It’s not what they teach in Catholic schools–it’s not what mainstream Christians believe,” she said. “We should teach evolution with respect for people’s religious views and with respect for science. In the classroom, we should teach the consensus view of science.”
Engle said she agreed with Scott’s position and said it is important that parents teach children their religious beliefs outside of the classroom rather than force religious views into the classroom.
“I don’t think evolution should be taken out of school,” she said. “Also, creation and intelligent design should not be taught.”
Frank Steiner, professor of biology at Hillsdale, said he agreed with Scott’s conclusion “one hundred percent” and said the presentation was “excellent.”
“I don’t think anything not accepted as legitimate scientific theory should be taught in schools, public or private,” Steiner said. “In the context of what should be taught in schools, we couldn’t have had a better speaker.”