Teaching intelligent design not a smart choice

In 1803, James Madison wrote that "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."

This is an ideal that our country was founded on, so why are we even questioning it now?

A new bill introduced by Republican Clayton Fiscus in the Montana House of Representatives would require public schools to teach intelligent design, the idea that the universe or parts of the universe were "designed" by an intelligent being, alongside evolution. The bill is currently tabled after a hearing, and if passed, likely would face considerable challenges in court.

The issue of intelligent design versus evolution is going to remain extremely contentious, so there isn't really much point of discussing it in this article. However, I believe that whatever you believe in, intelligent design still shouldn't be taught in public schools.

By teaching a single hypothesis, intelligent design, when there are hundreds of religions in existence, we further one religious idea over any other theory that also competes with evolution. By doing so, the government is choosing one idea and specifically teaching that over any of the other hypotheses in existence, which is a clear violation of the separation of church and state.

Some may argue that creationism isn't the same thing as intelligent design, which is true, but there are still plenty of religions that don't believe in either. No matter how you look at it, this would be a case of the government furthering a religious idea or group of religions.

Moreover, intelligent design and evolution aren't even comparable in terms of what they attempt to explain or the amount of evidence behind them. While the theory of intelligent design requires a belief in religion and tries to explain how the entire universe was created, evolution is just one aspect of that theory.

Intelligent design, by definition, explains everything from the beginning of the universe to the creation of mankind, the planets and the entire earth. While it is technically possible to believe in certain parts of the world being designed intelligently and believe that scientific theories explain the rest, they are still not comparable hypotheses.

There's one final reason that intelligent design isn't on the same level as evolution — the fact that it isn't considered a scientific theory like evolution. Some people forget that the only difference between a scientific law and a theory is that a law describes how a phenomenon can be predicted while a theory explains why.

There is no difference in the amount of proof or evidence behind it, meaning evolution is just as proven by hard evidence as gravity. While the word "theory" carries a connotation of "unproven" in the everyday sense, a "scientific theory" is anything but.

Not only is intelligent design not a scientific theory, it's technically not even a scientific hypothesis. To be considered scientific, it must be testable, predictable and consistent. Intelligent design is not definitively testable, cannot be used to predict future or experimental events or outcomes, and is not a single, unified, consistent theory. Therefore, it cannot even be considered a scientific hypothesis, much less be considered on the level of scientific theory.

These reasons are exactly why the teaching of intelligent design has been ruled by courts as unconstitutional in past cases in Pennsylvania, and similar bills have died in committees before making it into the mainstream. It's simply not a good idea to teach it in public schools.

Kye Burchard is a sophomore at Great Falls High and a member of the Tribune's Teen Panel.