The author discusses the arguments presented by Keith Lockitch in his editorial of December 23 on the topic of teaching Intelligent Design in the classroom.

Keith Lockitch’s December 23 editorial opposing the teaching of Intelligent Design in the classroom contains the usual whining of atheists who abhor the idea that critically thinking individuals could surmise from scientific research that a designer (i.e. God) is responsible for the origins of our universe. His objection seems to be that Intelligent Design inherently refers to a creator. In Lockitch’s opinion, this amounts to religion being taught in the classroom. I can immediately think of two flaws in his opinion.

First, “religion” is a word that could be applied to countless belief systems. Everything included in the belief systems of millions of people can’t be discarded from the classroom. Buddhists believe people can be reincarnated as animals. Can we no longer discuss cows or rats in science class? No doubt, there are even some belief systems that surmise evolution is responsible for the origins of our universe.

Secondly, If Intelligent Design inherently refers to a creator then the argument could be made that evolution inherently denies one. The unproven theory of Intelligent Design attributes a designer as the explanation of origins. The unproven theory of evolution attributes chance as the explanation. Both are possible reasons why the platypus got its bill. What reasoning allows only one side of an argument to be discussed in a classroom that is supposed to be about discovering truth?

Let the teachers teach the facts. Stop censoring what can be taught or discussed simply because those facts may point to a designer. Stop making unnecessary laws and let the science take us to its logical conclusion. If the sudden appearance of most modern species in the fossil record supports the concept of a designer, the children have a right to know. If we excluded everything that points to a designer we would have to stop teaching the Big Bang as a theory for the beginning of our universe because it also supports the view of those holding to Intelligent Design. The fact that something points to the existence of God is no reason to exclude it from science class. That sort of bias against the concept of God is not only bigoted but is also unscientific. What sort of researcher excludes one of the most obvious conclusions from all consideration?

Lockitch stated, “One does not explain complexity by dreaming up a new complexity as its cause.” Neither does one explain complexity by denying further complexity. What frightens atheists about discussing the possibility of a designer? Shouldn’t future scientists be encouraged to search all possible solutions? If a scientist discovered God, wouldn’t that be worth a Nobel Prize? The truth should be taught in our classrooms no matter how much it irritates the atheists or the religious. Sometimes, the best answer to a child’s question about why a certain thing is a certain way just may be this: Because God made it that way!