By Colton Fenner
In today's society, students in public education are taught from the very beginning about evolution and its pivotal role in the creation of life on Earth. Advocates of evolution seem very confident in their evidence; however, even the chief pioneer of this theory – Charles Darwin – openly admitted some of the flaws in his rationale. In his book The Origins of Species, Darwin wrote, “The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”
The Achilles heel of evolution has always been the limitations of its explanatory ability. Evolutionary biologists can only go back so far in time before their hypotheses and conjectures prove themselves obsolete. Scientists today can only cling to their dated evidence and hope for further explanations as technology progresses.
In a way, the premise of science isn't to prove things, but disprove things. We no longer assume the Earth to be flat, nor the Sun to revolve around the Earth; science has given us circumstantial evidence that prove these primitive assertions to be untrue. Evolution is no exception to this rule – it's perfectly feasible that the origins of life resulted from something entirely different than the macro-evolutionary patterns students are taught in schools today.
Why then, with so many questions regarding its viability, does evolution remain the only taught explanation for the origination of life? Many in the scientific establishment negate intelligent design simply because they assume it to be nothing more than a religious stunt masquerading as science. Nonetheless, there are people in the scientific community who refuse to accept the monopoly society has placed over this topic, people who are keenly aware of the problems evolution possesses. They remain silent, however, because if they were to ever come forward as being sympathetic toward intelligent design, they risk being ridiculed and ostracized from their peers.
In order for intelligent design to be taken seriously, it is important that it not be directly associated with creationism (though creationism is a pertinent form of intelligent design); this would only give ammunition to the individuals proclaiming intelligent design to be nothing more than a “derivation of religious fabrication.” It should be presented in a scientific manner, for it is a viable scientific affair. Once it is finally on the table, then we'll be able to have healthy, objective discussions about the possible paradigms for intelligent design and its role in the creation of life on Earth.
We should strive to create a world where people – and teachers – are open-minded about these specific issues, where ideas aren't thrown away simply because of stereotypes or personal vendettas. We should endeavor to create curriculums that seem less like one-way streets, and more like the tantamount levelness of which America embodies.