In recent years, the political struggle over intelligent design has become one of the most heated debates in the academic realm.The dispute hit especially close to home last June, when Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed a controversial legislative initiative allowing state teachers to present arguments that endorse intelligent design as a viable alternative for the origins of life.Before anyone can decide whether intelligent design should be taught alongside science, it’s important for students to acknowledge that the intelligent design debate has been improperly framed as a war between theism and science, between faith and skepticism.A quick study of the history of the intelligent design debate can illuminate many of the fallacies commonly associated with it, both from the perspective of intelligent design advocates and opponents.Many anti-theists, for example, claim intelligent  design infringes upon the principle of separation of church and state, which they loosely define as the exclusion of any partial religious influence from the public forum.But as history shows, applying such a vague translation often leads to trouble.The idea of “separation of church and state” originated in the early 19th century during the presidency of Thomas Jefferson, who wrote a letter to a small group of Baptist churches assuring them that the federal government would place no mandate on establishing an official religion.Contrary to common misperception, Jefferson’s intended message was not to exclude religious debate from the public forum; instead it was a direct promise that all individual’s religious freedom would be protected from government intervention.Though some skeptics’ opposition might be too harsh, it’s essential to recognize that the entire intelligent design debate has been highly misrepresented by many of its most ardent proponents.The failure of intelligent design efforts rest largely on the inability of “young earth creationists” to corroborate their theological theories with modern scientific discovery.Historical analysis indicates that in virtually all court cases involving intelligent design, judges were forced to examine the validity, or rather lack thereof, of a priori models of supernatural design in order to determine that first amendment rights weren’t being neglected.One prime example occurred during the 1987 case, Edwards v. Aguillard, where Supreme Court justices ruled against intelligent design on the basis that it had virtually no scientific validity or evidence, even according to a panel of Christian scientists.Regrettably for other, more pragmatic creationists, the failure of the young earth proponents has heavily contributed to the false dichotomy between faith and science.But just as it is irrational for a theist to support their claims simply by virtue of their faith, it is also irrational to claim anyone who holds faith should be immediately ignored.As modern science suggests, the very existence of the universe and its governing laws points toward the existence of a transcendent cause.Nearly every major cosmological and biological discovery in the last few centuries supports the idea that our material world had to have been the result, or creation, of something that lies outside our natural realm.Big Bang cosmology, as most scientists recognize, has considerable theistic implications including an absolute beginning of space, time and matter. Yet because of its scientific integrity and validity, it can be taught in the academic realm without inciting furious debate.Many young earth creationists make the mistake of claiming that only their views on creation are valid, despite their lack of scientific merit. This sort of blind allegation only serves to discredit other teleological models of design.If theistic scientists want to deal strictly in logic, they must restrict their own arguments to the realm of reason and empirical evidence.Faith, as it should be understood, is the rational and logical recognition that there could be some knowledge that lies beyond our empirical realm of understanding.True faith, then, is a logical extension of reason, not an illogical rejection of it.As recent discoveries indicate, there’s no reason believers should fear scientific advancements if their faith is rooted in reason, not subjective interpretation.To gain academic legitimacy, the introduction of future creation models must be done within the context of the scientific method and also collaborate with recent methodological discovery.When evolutionary science is taught properly, there’s no reason to assume it should deliberately conflict with rational theism.Hence, any dogmatic action that dilutes scientific fact with subjective beliefs should be immediately excluded from academic debate so all sides can benefit from objective scientific advance.Once we dispel the false dichotomy of science and supernatural belief, it should become evident that the time has come to put an end to this fruitless debate.The more people try to make science and theism conflict, the more damage students and faculty members inevitably incur.Scott Burns is a 20-year-old political science and business major from Baton Rouge.—–Contact Scott Burns at [email protected]