YOUR OWN ARGUMENT:

The Courts argued that teaching Intelligent Design was and is unconstitutional. Declaring that this idea, of intelligent design, is seeded in some religion and therefore violates the First Amendment because it teaches the existence of an intelligent designer is by no means any ground to remove this science from the classroom. Is there an Empirical basis? I believe so, along with many thousands of others, let me explain. Irreducible Complexity; In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”(12) Well, we now know, seeing that it is the twenty-first century, that there are many organs, systems, and processes in life that fit that description. One of those is the cell. The cell is irreducibly complex. An irreducibly complex system is, “composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning.” (13) Nevertheless, many others claim that Irreducible Complexity is not a product of design but can evolve. Evolutionary proponents claim that, “Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity (It is inconceivable that (fill in the blank) could have originated naturally. Therefore, it must have been created. (14)) ” (15) “Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:

* Deletion of parts
* Addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
* Change of function
* Addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
* Gradual modification of parts


All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).” (15) However, This does not explain the problem with genetic limits, cyclical change, and nonviability of transitional forms. Genetic limits seem to be built into the basic types. For example, despite efforts from scientist to manipulate fruit flies, their experiments have never yielded more than fruit flies. This is significant because the short life of fruit flies allows scientists to test generations of genetic variation in a short period of time. Furthermore, not only are there genetic limits to change, but the change appears to be cyclical. When looking closely at this change genetics shift back and forth in a limited range. For example, when looking carefully at Darwin’s finches there are many different beak shapes and sizes. These beaks have evolve over a period of time do to feeding in different, “ ecological niche’s.” (16) The larger beaks of the finches helped the birds crack larger, harder seeds during drought, and the smaller beaks helped crack smaller, softer seeds. Now, understanding that when the larger beaked finches were exposed to dryer climates for extended amounts of time the birds adapted, “ the proportion of finches with larger beaks grew relative to the smaller-beaked finches. The proportion reversed itself following a sustained period of wet weather. Notice that no new life forms came into existence, they always remained finches; only the relative proportion of existing large-beaked to small-beaked finches changed. Nevertheless, the court made the ruling that all Intelligent Design did was show that there were flaws in the evolutionary theory and some questions that evolution could not explain therefore Creation Science (Intelligent Design) was not a science but an argument against the evolutionary theory. I do, on one hand, understand the reasoning of the court and why they would not allow the teaching of Intelligent Design, do to the First Amendment, on the other I don’t, do to the simple fact that regardless of the fact that the concept of God is synonymous with the Christian religion and others does not negate the fact that there might be, and do to some very strong arguments, can show that there has to be a God. This is the reason, I believe, there should be some education teaching students these arguments and scientific reasons for Intelligent Design. The simple fact that God exists says nothing about what religion it is or what religion to choose. The “State” would not be violating, “The separation between Church and State” just by the fact that there are no ties between a specific Church and the Government.