Even though the Supreme Court ruled against teaching creationism in the classroom in 1987, it… Even though the Supreme Court ruled against teaching creationism in the classroom in 1987, it seems that it has snuck in, masquerading around classrooms with the pseudonym intelligent design.

We can no longer turn a blind eye to the heated argument that fueled the Scopes Monkey Trial of yesteryear. In its reverse, the question of whether intelligent design should be taught in schools along with evolution is on trial right here in a federal court in Pennsylvania. Eleven parents whose children attend Dover High School feel that the answer should be a resounding “no.”

They are not alone. The truth is, however, this should not be a question of what we as individuals believe. This should be a question about the true definition of science and the statute in our Constitution that upholds the separation of church and state.

When we consider science, there is clarity, logic and, above all, evidence that leads us to a conclusion. The hardcore proof surrounding evolution cannot even be compared to this new-age creationism of intelligent design. Science doesn’t color something complex and bring in a deus ex machina to fill in the blanks; it provides a structure of our world according to evidence.

Intelligent design uproots all the empirical evidence and logic that the foundation of science has laid down since the beginning of the discipline. There is no comparison between the evidence extracted in examples of Lucy and a far-reaching analogy involving the “watch maker,” or a mysterious individual that crafts a usable timepiece on the other side of the world, similar to an intelligent designer who created the world, whom we cannot see.

Undoubtedly, there is a lingering feeling that Christian fundamentalist parents have that supports their decision to proselytize dogma at the expense of someone else’s belief. There is the inadequacy felt when faith must compete with proof and scientific evidence. In that desperation, two bodies of thought that should remain entirely separate must unite on the basis of watering down science for the sake of preserving faith. However, it is not science’s responsibility to fill in that void.

As a nation that thrives on the principle of democracy, it is our responsibility to uphold democracy, especially when, in being the forerunner for what democracy should be, we are insistent on bringing it across shores, assured that it will improve a nation.

It seems that this always boils down to a question of beliefs. We live in a country where democracy charges us to not only respect the beliefs of others, but also empowers us to have our own. And the two can co-exist.

Often it seems that a lot of people believe things more because they want to believe them than because it’s actually true. Sadly, a 13-year-old in the Bible Belt who disagrees with teachings purported in intelligent design will probably risk being exiled from the only world that they know. Under no circumstances can we cater theories of how living organisms began to the Christian comfort level. We must go against the grain if science requires it.

If we start teaching faith-based beliefs that have no scientific evidence because people are comfortable with it, this leaves room for so many other teachings that exist outside of the realm of fact regarding the subject of science. If it’s OK to teach intelligent design alongside evolution, what’s next?