Drexel English and philosophy professor Stacey Ake is blunt when it comes to the theory of intelligent design.
"It is garbage," she said.
Ake was joined by Penn professors Michael Weisberg, Rogers Smith and Alan Kors on Monday for a panel discussion on intelligent design -- the theory that an intelligent creator must have guided the development of life -- as part of the Penn American Civil Liberties Union's Rights Week.
The panel began by asking who should dictate schools' curricula. Kors said that the political answer is that the "curriculum is set by who pays for the people who teach" -- the citizens of the school district.
Smith discussed the issue in its constitutional context. "School districts can authorize the teaching of intelligent design," he said, "but it depends on how they do it." If schools present intelligent design as a way to assert religious truth, then there is a constitutional violation, Smith said.
Citizens of Dover, Pa., recently voted out eight of nine school board members who supported mentioning intelligent design in classes, while the Kansas Board of Education upheld the teaching of intelligent design.
A group of 32 Penn professors, including Weisberg, a Philosophy professor, had previously sent a letter to the Dover school district's lawyer criticizing the district.
The panel reflected this criticism as it went on to attack intelligent design as an unscientific theory.
"Intelligent design is not a science; it's not anything close to science," Weisberg said.
"Religious ideologues [who] want to teach creationism" push intelligent design, he said.
Smith agreed. "We should try to find and teach the best science available, which is incompatible to teaching intelligent design," he said.
"It's a form of creationism, except that the creator is not named," Weisberg said.
Defenders of intelligent design argue that it fills perceived gaps in evolutionary theory. But this is incorrect, Ake said.
"There are profound gaps in physics," she said, pointing to discrepancies between classical and quantum physics.
"But do any of you doubt that your cell phone works? So much for the gaps," she said.
Kors closed the debate by saying that although there may be a limit to what science can explain, the place for questions raised by intelligent design is not the classroom.
