Is there is a correct theory?

 The battle between the theory of evolution and creationism has been back and forth within the school system and among scientist. Its been argued that evolutionary theories may be incorrect, and therefore unfit to be taught as a law in a class room in both high school and college.
        In Ben Stein's documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed many professors and teachers have been laid off from their positions at universities for merely mentioning intelligent design or creationism in a paper or lecture. If both theories of the beginning of life as we know it have sufficient evidence what is the proper approach? I do not believe that teaching evolution in a classroom without providing alternative ideas is politically right. Simply because no theory of the beginning of life is 100% unquestionable any theory is unfit for the classroom if presented alone, and should not be allowed.

      Intelligent design is not specific to the Bible, nor is it synonymous with Christianity. Rather, the true irreducibly complexity theology is based on lack of empirical evidence for evolution. Empirical [evidence] is defined by Dictionary.com as "being derived from experiment or experience," or in other words results must be consistent throughout repeated trials. As far as the latter definition, the experience, evolution is very recordable. This is made clear through Charles Darwin's original observations of finches, which lead to his theory of natural selection. Darwin observed the same type of bird, but noted differences in their shape and several body structures, specifically their beaks. So it is recorded and observable that evolution is real, and is safe to conclude that it does exist. However, this does not prove that it functions on macro level, meaning change from one species to another. Darwin himself even recognized the question that if evolution is true on a macro level then why are there no transitional animals currently between species? In order to get empirical evidence of evolution, so that it would be teachable in classrooms, first it needs to be repeated. This would require organisms being able to evolve as Darwin describes in chapter VI of his book On Origin of Species by Means of NaturalSelection, such as fish developing lungs that are truly functional out of water, or some other species evolving into an entirely different one.  I believe Charles Darwin was spot on with natural selection, but only to a certain degree. Evolution is a living and active process that is very evident on a microscopic level, evidently with Influenza. The "flu" changes roughly every year into a new "breed" and does so to survive, defining natural selection. But with only the experience definition backed up with only micro changes, there is a vas amount of the theory unsupported leaving it still unsuitable for the classroom.

     Natural selection has a limit outwardly in that it simply cannot explain cross species evolution, but is there a limit to it at a fundamental, cellular level? Michael Behe found that there was. In 1996 Behe developed the theory of Irreducible Complexity (IC). IC looked at the flagellum, a fundamental component in an animal cell. The flagella are composed of many pieces unique to the structure, meaning that they are not found anywhere else in any cell. The pieces that are found in the flagellum are unique to it, and do not seem to have originated anywhere else, this points out that there could be a flaw in the theory of evolution and natural selection. Natural selection clearly states that if something is unnecessary or "extra" it will not pass on to the following generation. So if they did not come from natural selection, where did they come from? By assuming they were constructed via natural selection would be jumping to conclusions.  In the classroom this teaches kids to ignore possible alternatives and accept what ever is placed simply in front of them, and last time I checked, that wasn’t science, and that definitely was not good education.

         There are many arguments, from several different fields of science that argue for the theory of an intelligent designer. In 1929 the astronomer named Georges Lemaitre empirically proved that the universe was consistently expanding by tracking the distance of neighboring galaxies from the Earth. This evidence leads to the conclusion that if the universe is expanding, there had to be a being point were all matter and space originated. The universe is not “dynamic” or “eternal” but rather had a beginning point. If the universe began as single explosion, then by Newton’s laws all the pieces that break off should all be moving in the same direction and manner, but in our own galaxy planets spin in different directions on different axises. Both of these factors are not enough to "prove" a creator exists, but they do give reason to exclude naturalistic and evolutionary ideas from being taught as laws.

     In a study by Robert Tatina in South Dakota, 200 biology teachers (every high school biology teacher in the state) were surveyed (99 responded) in order to figure out the true restrictions they had while teaching. What the research showed was that teachers were not only limited to not teaching creationism, but were pleased not to. It’s hard to get materials and curriculum taught if the ones teaching it don't want to or don't believe it. Tatina discovered that 83 percent of teachers were satisfied with were their textbook, because it covered evolution sufficiently and omitted creationism. As much as I would like to see intelligent design taught in the class room, the teachers also don't want to teach it, and it would be just as unfair for me to force that on them as for them to force evolution on me. To force someone to teach an idea goes against my argument politically. Additionally my point is that scientifically it is unjust to teach something as law if it is not proven to be, and intelligent design is not proven empirically. So who is "right enough" to be taught in schools? Both of the theories about the origin of life are just that, theories, which requires faith on both sides. To believe that evolution is true and to teach it as such requires faith that the scientists who developed the theory and have been teaching it, such as Richard Dawkins, are correct, and to believe that there is a Creator who designed life also takes faith. Empirical evidence is needed to eliminate faith, and it seems as if neither side can provide it, so why not offer both and let the kids studying the material decide for themselves?

     In 2014 the child inspirer Bill Nye (the science guy) entered a debate to discusthe origins of life with Creationist Ken Ham. During the debate scientific evidence was a lacking from Ham.  It was recorded was that Ken Ham was really targeting the methods and reasoning behind evolution being considered a law vs. theory. Bill Nye was using tangible evidence pointing towards evolution such as Darwin's finch study. Ultimately it became clear in the debate that while Bill Nye (the science guy) was giving a scientific debate Ham was merely arguing theologically and attacking the use of the word "proof," and was not giving an argument scientifically but rather religiously. Although Bill Nye did walk away the victor of the argument, it does bring up a good point. How are anti-evolution theories and religion connected?

     To specify the difference between intelligent design, creationism, and evolution the book Evolution, Creationism, and the Battle to Control the American Classroom is a good reference for the differentiations. Creationism is specific to God (the Christian God) and how He used his power to create life and our universe, whereas intelligent design states that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that life is too complex to have come into existence by chance alone and that there was something that organized life, but is not specific to whom. It is important to use the terms "intelligent design" and "creationism" in the right manner per argument, and in this argument I am suggesting that intelligent design be taught, and not creationism because creationism is not a scientific theory because it specifies the Christian God is the designer and therefore would be a religious teaching. Rather my concern is that if intelligent design theories are discovering that complexity is to great for chance, then why should it be omitted from the class room if it counters, empirically, what is being taught as the beginning of life.

  Jumping to conclusions can be observed on both sides, so as stated before I'll remind you that both sides take faith. One side requires faith that the universe is truly dynamic and eternal and that life evolved from an original organism despite evidence of macroevolutionary changes between species. The other side requires faith that the chance alone isn't good enough. Politically, we are all free to our own opinion, but I believe that because there is sufficient reason to doubt one theory, both the theory  and its flaws should be taught in the class room and the student should be allowed to chose which side to put there faith in, rather than simply omitting the flaws of one.