The legal debate over whether or not intelligent design should be taught in schools has been dormant since 2005; however, the same cannot be said for public support for both sides of the debate.

Dialogue about why intelligent design should and should not be taught in schools has become more active among average Americans. Generally, advocates for dialogue should be allowed in all circumstances, but it seems most of this debate is held in smoke-filled room style debates in high school government class, where people ask: “why not teach both?”

Nothing against high school government teachers, but I’d take a guess and say that most are not well equipped enough to answer that question. This issue does not allow for the imploration “why not both?” to be answered.

Put as simply as possible, intelligent design is not science. That’s why it has no place in the classroom.

Intelligent design markets itself as a scientific alternative to Darwinian evolution. It is the idea that some patterns in nature are too complex to have evolved, and therefore must have been designed by a supernatural outsider… or aliens.

Although aliens are a possibility in intelligent design, Judge John Jones III, in Kitzmiller et. al. v. Dover Area School District didn’t buy this blatant veil for religion, writing “[intelligent design] cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.”

Although Judge Jones ruled against the presence of intelligent design in the classroom, because it violated the establishment clause in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution, William Dembski’s Design of Life textbook states that intelligent design is unaffected at worst by this decision. The epilogue reassures the reader that even though the case may have stifled the mission of intelligent design to be taught in grade school and high school as an alternative to evolution, they won because now people know and are talking positively about intelligent design.

ID proponents are correct. People are talking about it more and more. The debate has even coined the phrase “teach the controversy.” But, the contrary sides of this debate have conflicting ideas about what the “controversy” really is.

ID supporters believe that Darwinian evolutionists are censoring altering theories, because they are set in a foundation based on the preconception that evolution is true.

Evolutionary scientists on the other hand believe that ID is not just attacking the theory of evolution, but also attacking the very definition of science. This is where the claim “it’s just a theory” comes into play.

During Kitzmiller et. al. v. Dover Area School District, much of the time was dedicated to defining what science is and why each opposing side was science.

Evolutionary scientists used the U.S. National Academy of Science’s definition for scientific theory which states, “Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences and tested hypotheses.”

ID supporter Michael Behe gave another definition, saying a scientific theory is “a proposed explanation which points to physical data and logical inferences.” This definition would, admitted Behe, include astrology as a scientific theory.

This new definition broadens what classifies as a scientific theory and ultimately what is science. We’ve been there. Making science more inclusive is a regressive idea that attacks science in order to promote a religion, under some false pretense that science and religion are contrary structures.

Simply, intelligent design does not belong in a classroom alongside evolution because not only can you not dichotomize religion and ID, relying on supernatural agents creates a science that is subjective and irrelevant.

Michael Patrick is a junior majoring in political science.