A mysterious, ancient, 12-square-foot tile floor that was uncovered by a Grand Junction rancher 68 years ago was recently re-examined by a team of 20 archaeologists, geologists and anthropologists, who determined that despite its complexity, it was a natural formation, not a man-made floor.
This patch of evenly spaced, seemingly grouted rock is a metaphor for the evolution/intelligent design debate that has embroiled public schools in controversy.
When scientists first saw these 4-inch-thick tiles, carefully cut, polished, leveled and grouted, they concluded that the floor must have been created by an ancient civilization. This belief was supported by a burn mark on the tiles that might have been made by a cooking fire.
However, the Western Investigations Team, organized by the Museum of Western Colorado and Mesa State College, recently evaluated the structure and found no cut marks on the rocks, no other artifacts in the area, no evidence of a civilization, another “floor” several feet below the first one and similar geological phenomena in other parts of the world. The alleged burn mark turned out to be iron, not carbon.
The team concluded that the rancher had discovered a natural rock formation. The bedrock had been evenly cracked and naturally grouted by bentonite clay 40 million years ago during the Eocene epoch. The rocks gained their polished appearance through exposure to the elements for thousands of years.
If children learned about this rock formation in science classrooms, would it be reasonable to tell them that “natural events” and “creation” were equally likely theories to explain the origin of the structure?
President Bush recently advocated the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution as if they’re equal theories, and a recent study by the Pew Forum found that 64 percent of Americans agreed with him.
John Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said, “It’s like they are saying, ‘Some people see it this way, some see it that way, so just teach it all and let the kids figure it out.”‘
But they’re not equal.
Although intelligent design asks some reasonable questions, it is not a full-blown, stand-alone scientific theory. It’s quasi-science that is parasitic upon the theory of evolution. Intelligent design theorists say that evolution doesn’t explain “specified complexity.”
If something is highly specific and highly complex, they argue, then the likelihood that it achieved that state through evolution is virtually impossible. Saying evolution created an organ as complex as the eye is like saying that evolution created the wrist- watch.
While this argument is interesting, it’s not a scientific theory that should be taught in schools.
Science is an investigatory enterprise in which researchers continuously try to prove their theories wrong. Scientists in dozens of fields have challenged the theory of evolution, and although it doesn’t answer every question, it has survived as the most likely answer.
The central idea in intelligent design is that God and/or extraterrestrials exist, and he/they created the Earth and all the life on it. If this were a true scientific theory, then its adherents would spend their time trying to disprove the existence of God and/or extraterrestrials and creationism. Instead, they accept their central idea without question, and seek to disprove evolution by picking anomalies.
This dubious “scientific” approach is easily revealed in an analogy: If a dermatologist said, “I theorize Reggie Rivers has dark brown skin,” the intelligent design approach would counter, “Then how do you explain his white palms and the bottoms of his feet?” It’s not a theory unto itself; it’s merely an attack on the dermatologist’s statement.
Yes, students should think critically about evolution. Yes, intelligent design asks some important questions. But no, intelligent design is not a scientific theory on par with the theory of evolution, and it should not be presented as such in classrooms.
