New students in any science class are required to know one crucial fact: science is far from immutable. Any current ideas on a given subject may only prove true until they are replaced by new ideas that better explain the data. Never should a student be compelled to believe what they are learning is an inflexible set of facts. Instead, they learn the truth as it is understood, not as it is known. Theories are constantly replaced or updated due to the self-corrective nature of science.
The ideal scientists do not assume the truth beforehand; rather, their conclusions derive from the simplest and most plausible explanation of the data, and those conclusions may still differ. Yet alternatives should only be taught in public schools as far as they yield to a proper approach to the scientific method. This set of criteria will be used to address the debate over Intelligent Design’s presence in the curriculum of publicly-funded schools.
The phrase “evolutionary theory” is actually misleading because it implies there is only one comprehensive model. For example, there is widespread debate over the mechanism of change found in life under the two schools of thought led by Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins (Fuller, 78). However, the main premise remains the same in both forms: species change over time. Both the disciples of Gould and Dawkins examine this premise through the changing complexity of organisms, though they ultimately disagree on the relationship between evolution and that increasing complexity (Fuller, 38-39). However, both of these models should be taught due to their reliable acknowledgment of the data regarding change in species.
Intelligent Design serves as an alternative model to the more conventional theories of evolution. Like evolutionary theory, Intelligent Design anticipates organism complexity in a way Creation Science does not (Fuller, 69). Concepts such as irreducible complexity and the anthropic principle build the back-bone...