WATERLOO - Where did we come from?

Evolutionists and creationists have battled over that essential question for centuries. Now, proponents of intelligent design are entering the fray, lobbying to have their view taught in public schools alongside evolution.

Intelligent design posits that life is too complex to have simply evolved, and must have been designed, presumably by a higher power. Critics call it warmed-over creationism.

The debate is fierce. A civil trial began Sept. 26 in federal court in Harrisburg, Pa., with the Dover Area School District defending its requirement that ninth-grade students be introduced to intelligent design in advance of a biology class that teaches evolution. The policy is being contested in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State on behalf of 11 parents.

The outcome will bind only schools within the Dover district, but could potentially affect how schools teach biology across the country if the appeals process takes the case to the Supreme Court.

Opponents of intelligent design maintain it is a variation of creationism, which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1987 could not be required to be taught in public schools because of its roots in religious thought.

Last fall, the Dover district issued a statement to be read in biology classes giving students the opportunity to research intelligent design for themselves in the book, "Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins," available in the school library and published by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, an intelligent design advocacy group based in Texas. Plantiffs in the Dover trial have asserted "Pandas" was called "Biology and Creation" in a 1986 draft, but references to creation were changed to intelligent design after the Supreme Court's 1987 decision against teaching creationism.

The intelligent design movement also is being debated in other areas of the country, including Ohio, Georgia and Kansas, where in August the state board of education gave preliminary approval to allowing alternatives similar to intelligent design to be discussed alongside evolution.

The big 'E' word

Debbie Lee, secondary curriculum coordinator for the Waterloo School District, said there is no policy mandating the teaching of evolution in current science curriculum, although that curriculum is under revision.

"Part of what I do is set the framework for the curriculum in what we expect teachers to teach, but I don't micro-manage," said Lee. "If in that nine weeks or in the semester they wanted to bring additional teaching in that goes beyond the written curriculum … certainly they could do that, as long as they present it as theory."

Marcey Hand, a biology teacher at Cedar Falls High School, jokingly refers to evolution as "the big E word." In the first day of her unit on evolution, Hand asks students to write down everything that comes to mind when she says the word "evolution."

"I give them one minute to write everything down, and we spin off of that. What is listed on paper we put on the board, and I encourage them to not only put down things they heard in science, but to put down their feelings," said Hand.

Students write what they know about evolution - Charles Darwin or the 1925 Scopes Trial (in which a teacher was prosecuted for teaching about evolution, which was banned in Tennessee at the time) - but they also write things like "what about creation," "anti-God," "it's false" or "it's against my religion."

"From this I get a feeling of where they're coming from," said Hand. "Then I tell them where I'm coming from in this part of the course. My goal is not to convince them of something, but rather to present ideas and the evidence for evolution, and then (they) get to decide."

Hand encourages students to come to her if they feel uncomfortable with the topic of evolution. After discussing it they usually feel more secure, she said. As a teacher, she sees the benefit of students challenging what she tells them.

"That means they're processing things on a whole other level," she said.

In the Waterloo schools, no student is forced to go through any part of a unit they feel strongly against.

"We pretty much have a procedure where if a parent and student request not to be a part of a unit, they can request that and we will honor that request," said Lee. "But we do come up with something in its place. We would never force a student or family to have their child be part of a unit they were morally against.

"We truly want to honor the beliefs of students, and that's really important. At the same time, we have to balance the curriculum presented for learning."

Scientific perspective

For many scientists and educators, the argument for evolution is as plain as the fossils they study.

The University of Northern Iowa has a class devoted strictly to evolution, said Jim Demastes, associate professor in biology department, and virtually every biology course deals with it. It is, he said, "the underpinning of all biology."

Some professors at UNI and Iowa State University feel so strongly that intelligent design should not be taught in schools that 110 signed a petition stating the fact. It begins, "We, the undersigned faculty members at the University of Northern Iowa , join our colleagues from Iowa State University in rejecting all attempts to represent Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavor."

"It's important for people to realize that we don't object to talk (of intelligent design) being on campus; we object to it being portrayed as science. That's why we don't think they should be teaching it in science class," said Demastes. "In order for science to work, we have to be able to test the ideas. That's why it's sort of limited. There's just no way to test the existence of a designer."

Many major scientific organizations agree, often pointing to the similarity of DNA in closely related organisms as the best proof of evolution.

In the second edition of "Science and Creationism," published in 1999, the National Academy of Sciences stated, "The concept of biological evolution is one of the most important ideas ever generated by the application of scientific methods to the natural world. The evolution of all the organisms that live on earth today from ancestors that lived in the past is at the core of genetics, biochemistry, neurobiology, physiology, ecology and other biological disciplines. It helps to explain the emergence of new infectious diseases, the development of antibiotic resistance to bacteria, the agricultural relationships among wild and domestic plants and animals, the composition of the earth's atmosphere, the molecular machinery of the cell, the similarities between human beings and other primates, and countless other features of the biological and physical world."

Last month, 38 Nobel Prize laureates asked Kansas educators to reject proposed science standards allowing further criticism of evolution, calling it "the indispensable foundation of biology."

The ACLU states conclusions on its Web site that intelligent design is "fundamentally religious."

"The origin of life, how everything got started, we do not have that figured out and we do not claim to. But this is the way science works. We answer some questions and we can't explain others," said Demastes. "But if we just say it's because a supernatural being did this, what would happen if we did that with cancer? We don't understand everything about cancer, but we can't just throw up our hands and say, 'A creator did this and that's it.' We may not ever find an answer, but we have to keep trying."

Molly Olson, an assistant professor of biology at UNI, makes no distinction between the theory of intelligent design and the creationist theory.

"If you want to believe (intelligent design) that's fine, but it's a statement based on faith, not on science. As a statement of faith it's entirely appropriate," she said.

Intelligent design advocates

The scientific perspective, though, is at odds with what the majority of Americans believe.

According to a July 2005 survey sponsored by the Pew Forum and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 64 percent of Americans support teaching creationism alongside evolution in the classroom. The survey found that 60 percent believe humans and animals have either always existed in their current form or that they evolved over time under the guidance of a supreme being. Only 26 percent think that life evolved through natural selection.

Guillermo Gonzalez, an assistant professor of physics and astronomy at Iowa State University, spoke at UNI in support of intelligent design on Sept. 28. Gonzalez is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based public policy think tank with interests in transportation technology and intelligent design. He also is co-author of the book "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery."

He disagrees with Olson and others' insistence that creationism and intelligent design are one and the same.

"It's actually not creationism," said Gonzalez in a phone interview. "It's a factual statement and a part of the scientific method. People making those statements are ignorant of intelligent design. There are myths on the Internet about it being creationism. (To be science) it has to be testable, and it is quite testable and falsifiable."

In "The Privileged Planet," Gonzalez and co-author Jay Richards, who holds a doctorate from Princeton Theological Seminary, claim design is evident in the elements that compose our planet. The presence of elements like carbon and oxygen in the exact right amounts make it possible for earth to be inhabited. Proof of design is around us - in everything from tree rings to lake sediments.

Gonzalez also disagrees with those who consider intelligent design a theory based in theology.

"The argument has nothing to do with the book of Genesis and the Bible, nothing to do with creationism," said Gonzalez. "No theological implications go into intelligent design research."

Elizabeth Tometich, a UNI senior majoring in elementary and middle education, attended Gonzalez' talk as a future teacher and a creationist. She agreed intelligent design is being attached unfairly to Christianity.

"They have attached intelligent design to Christians because there are Christians who support it, but just because it is supported by a group doesn't mean that it is Christian in nature," said Tometich. "Evolution has long been supported by the secular humanist movement, and secular humanists declared themselves a religion in both manifestos. They endorse evolution, but we don't consider evolution a religious topic. That doesn't make it a religious movement."

Tometich said some who ascribe to the theory of intelligent design believe God exists and others don't.

Let students decide

What is important to Tometich is that students are given more than one theory of how the earth came to be. Tometich attended public school for her secondary education, and she said she was taught evolution not as a theory but a fact. Tometich researched other theories independently.

Tometich said the reaction of some UNI professors at Gonzalez's UNI talk reflected the attitude about evolution in the schools.

"My thought is they're shooting down this opinion without looking into it, but they want us to buy whole-heartedly into evolution," she said. "It seems so one-sided. If we want students to learn critical thinking skills, what better way than to present two theories and let them reason and think through and make the conclusion for themselves?"

Tom Wagner, who teaches science to eighth-graders and high school students at Walnut Ridge Baptist Academy, teaches his students the creationist theory. He teaches "that life was designed, was caused by a supernatural entity (God) and has a purpose for existing."

Wagner, too, was taught evolution growing up, and is thankful for that education, saying, "In order to fully know how to defend one's belief one must understand well both sides of an issue. Ignorance is not bliss in this debate."

Kevin Van Wyk, pastor of Bridge of Hope Church in Waterloo, is a creationist and hopes to see intelligent design taught in schools. He went through the public school system and learned about evolution. He didn't come to his belief in creationism until he was in college.

"What I was taught was the whole concept of … life formed out of this muddy pit and this is the way it worked. And there was little reason to argue that point. I certainly didn't have anybody around me saying 'that's wrong.' Nobody was presenting any other argument to it. When you're in school you don't necessarily question everything," said Van Wyk. "I think schools should be presenting various theories of creation, of how the world came to be, and give fair time to those different ideas that are out there. It seems ridiculous that evolution is given center stage … and creationism and intelligent design are dismissed with little concern."

Gonzalez said members of the Discovery Institute are in Pennsylvania for the Dover case, and though members of the institute support intelligent design theory, they don't believe it should be mandated curriculum in public schools.

"The Discovery Institute position on that is intelligent design … should not be outlawed, but it shouldn't be mandated either. They've been very clear on that from the beginning," said Gonzalez. "They think intelligent design specifically shouldn't be mandated because it is too new of a theory. With something that cutting edge, they don't think teachers will be qualified to teach it.

"The other side involves the teaching of evolution," Gonzalez said. "The institute's position is it should be taught as scientific theory, both the positive and the negative. The way it's taught now is the evidence against it is not being taught at all. They want to see more evolution taught rather than less. They certainly don't want it to be stricken from the textbooks."

Contact Kelsey Holm at (319) 291-1464 or kelsey.holm@wcfcourier.com.