F. Scott Fitzgerald once said, “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” As the debate over teaching intelligent design rages across America in schools and churches, each and every one of us as Stanford students must rise to this challenge.

The idea of bringing God into classrooms and curricula has been around long enough to elicit strong support on both sides. In 1987, the historical Edwards vs. Aguillard Louisiana case decided that the teaching of creationism — or the belief that life was created by a supreme being’s supernatural intervention — in public schools had the primary purpose of a particular religious belief and was therefore unconstitutional.

Recently, the argument for teaching intelligent design—frequently compared to creationism—has surfaced, begging the question whether or not it should be taught alongside or in place of evolution. Last year, President George W. Bush received both criticism and acclaim for stating his belief that intelligent design should be taught in tandem with evolution as “competing theories.”

According to The New York Times, the widely accepted definition of intelligent design is the belief that life is too complex to be explained by evolution alone. This leaves room for educators to introduce the idea that human beings were created by an “intelligent designer,” usually interpreted to be a deity.

At the same time, proponents of intelligent design are finding it more difficult than expected to sell their version of science. An attempt to mandate the teaching of intelligent design in Indiana rapidly scaled down to a bill requiring “accuracy in textbooks,” while policymakers in Wisconsin proposed a novel ban on teaching intelligent design as a science just last week.

The discussions on intelligent design taking place all over the country is a discussion that we need to have amongst ourselves on campus right now. While some may think that this debate is and should remain in the realm of theory, it has many real implications for us Stanford students, who walk the fine line between scientific skepticism and faith.

We attend a research institution that understands the importance of scientific questioning and taking nothing for granted. We value the teaching of science and scientific methods, which are at odds with intelligent design. At the same time, we are members of a community that strongly encourages us to believe in whatever it is that brings us peace of mind, a community that has made its church a symbolic centerpiece of its campus and stands strongly behind the right to embrace freedom of religion.

Is there a middle ground? How do we reconcile the differences between science and faith? Do we compromise the standards of science by teaching intelligent design along with evolution or even in place of it? Are we rejecting or accepting the notion of intelligent design based on our own personal religious beliefs, and is that legitimate?

The bottom line is that even in our insular Bubble, we are not far removed from this issue. We cannot even escape from it, as it ties together the key symbols of church and school that characterize Stanford as much as any other community.

It is time to have a thoughtful debate in class, out on the Quad, over coffee and while biking. Let us question each other, challenge each other and learn to disagree openly, vocally and honestly.