In one of the most important legal clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a federal judge recently barred a Pennsylvania public school district from teaching “intelligent design” (hereafter referred to as ID) in biology class, saying the concept is creationism in disguise. Creationism holds that there is scientific evidence to support the Genesis account of the creation of the earth and of life. However, legal doctrine holds that the public school classroom must be religiously neutral and that schools must not advocate religious views. In 1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that teaching creationism in public schools results in the unconstitutional establishment of religion. Evolution, on the other hand, is intrinsically anti-religious and the teaching of same presents no such issues.
In Missouri, a legislative approach was tried but it now appears to be dead according to the April 2, 2006 edition of the Kansas City Star. HB 1266, the so-called Missouri Science Education Act, would have provided, “If a theory or hypothesis of biological origins is taught, a critical analysis of such theory or hypothesis shall be taught in a substantive amount.” The bill was opposed by a wide range of teacher groups and school organizations, and even several faith-based groups. The Star quoted the chief lobbyist for the Missouri affiliate of the National Education Association as expressing concern about the possible economic consequences of HB 1266 as follows: “We need to be doing our utmost to increase science literacy so our kids can compete.”
But the Kansas State Board of Education, reinforcing that state’s increasingly wacky reputation, took an aggressive, if not dubious, policy step. At the risk of re-igniting the same nationwide squabble it sparked several years ago, the Kansas board approved new public school science standards that cast doubt on the theory of evolution. The 6-4 vote was a win for ID advocates who interestingly helped draft the standards. (ID holds that the universe is so complex it must have been created by a higher power.) Critics of the language charged that it was an attempt to inject God and creationism into public schools in violation of the separation of church and state. “This is a sad day. We’re becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that,” said board member Janet Waugh, a Kansas City Democrat. And rightly so, for the vote marked the third time in six years that the Kansas board has rewritten standards with evolution as the central issue. In 1999, the board eliminated most references to evolution, a move Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould said was akin to teaching “American history without Lincoln.” Two years later, after voters replaced three members, the board reverted to evolution-friendly standards. Elections in 2002 and 2004 changed the board’s composition again, making it more conservative. And now this.
Other states could follow suit; a few have learned to get around the Supreme Court ruling by platforming the teaching of evolution as optional or by urging teachers to describe it as just one of several theories. There is also a movement to insert ID into public schools by way of speakers, clubs, and/or textbook disclaimers. Curiously, such ID groups seem to focus more on how they can tactically and legally introduce the topic into science classes than they do on producing verifiable scientific research.
Battle lines are being drawn across the country over the teaching of ID……..which, to be more specific, is a concept similar to but not identical to creation science. ID relies upon a lack of knowledge for its conclusion. In the absence of such an explanation, intelligent causes are assumed. ID also includes a curious and telling component, one that focuses on ideological and religious goals rather than scholarly ones. Proponents argue that a neutral-sounding “intelligence” is responsible for design. Their premise seems to be that as long as they don’t explicitly name the “designer,” this somehow insulates their viewpoint from the charge of being inherently religious in character. Their arguments are carefully crafted to appear scientific and non-religious, though they have no data supporting their claims. At one time, they promoted creationism as a religious imperative. Now they package their beliefs as “better science.”
But more to the point, the real question is: does ID have a legitimate place in a high school science curriculum? Does it have a place in Kennett High right here in Conway, New Hampshire?
In deciding whether to consider including ID in the curriculum, the sectarian orientation and nature of the movement should be taken into account. The Discovery Institute’s Center for Renewal of Science and Culture in Seattle serves as an home for virtually all of the major advocates of ID. The goals of the CRSC, as stated by the Institute’s director Bruce Chapman, are explicitly religious: namely, to promote Christian theism and to defeat philosophical materialism. Thus, for constitutional reasons, if for no other, the religious orientation of ID clearly makes it unsuitable. Moreover, school board members here and elsewhere should be aware that introducing this topic into the curriculum likely would lead to strong–even legal–opposition from, parents, teachers, clergy, and scientists and others who want to see the sanctity of science preserved.
Now then, the reason for all this seems pretty obvious. Put simply, the aim of ID advocates is to get around the constitutional ban on religion in public schools with their real agenda being the promotion of faith-based teachings in the classroom.
Unlike the metaphysical chop suey in which ID frequently gets entangled, science seeks natural explanations for natural phenomena. It does so by logical inferences from observable facts, experimentation, and verification and relies on reason and evidence. In reason, as Keith Lockitch (a Ph.D. In physics) asserts, one accepts only conclusions that can be proven to be true–conclusions based on sensory evidence and logical inference from such evidence. Faith, on the other hand, is belief that is not supported by facts or logic. It embraces ideas and concepts despite an absence of evidence or proof. But, it would seem, the only ideas that are reasonable are those you know to be true by means of reason, that is, through observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Most scientists maintain that scientific investigation must adhere to the scientific method, a process for evaluating empirical knowledge under the working assumption of methodological materialism , which explains observable events in nature as a result of natural causes, rejecting supernatural notions. ( from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Clearly, science and religion are mutually exclusive. Each has an important part in this writer’s life and to the lives of most Americans. I attended a private sectarian-oriented academy, a Presbyterian college, and a Jesuit graduate school. In all three, religion played an extremely important role in the classroom. Faith-based teachings, whether Christian, Judaism, Muslim, or whatever are extremely important in their proper forum……..but a public school classroom is not that forum.
Evolution and creationism are also mutually exclusive. Distorting their definitions does not change the reality of their mutual exclusivity. Until and unless something better comes along, evolution will continue to be recognized as the best explanation for the development of life on Earth. As such, it is taught as an integral part of biology, science and related courses in schools, academies, colleges and universities throughout the world.
Some make compelling and open arguments to eliminate the prohibitions to having religion in the classroom. These are worthy of respect and due consideration. An associate argues as follows: “The bill of rights states: ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’ Thus Congress should make no law saying children cannot pray in schools or cannot bring their Bibles to school or that they cannot be taught about God… Whether they are Christian, Jewish, Unitarian, or Muslim. According to Jefferson, his reference to “separation of church and state” addressed an issue where one particular denomination wanted to be made the officially recognized “state religion” … Similar to the Church of England being the state religion of that country. All birth/death certificates must go through the Church of England.. Making everyone by default a member of the Church of England. That is what our founding fathers wanted to avoid - not to take all reference of God out of public forums.”
However, thinly veiled attempts (such as that perpetrated in Kansas and a few other states) to distort scientific understanding in order to promote certain religious beliefs do not serve our students well. School board members (and administrators) would be poorly advised to follow the Kansas example and consider including ID in a public school science curriculum. But if such proposals are raised here in New Hampshire, they should be met with explanations that there is no scientific evidence to support ID, at least for now. A less polite way of responding might be to simply state the obvious to wit: ID is a disguised form of religious advocacy or, as the Judge in Pennsylvania put it, it is creationism in camouflage and does not belong in a public classroom.
“Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.” Albert Einstein
Ted Sares, PhD, is a private investor who lives and writes in the White Mountain area of Northern New Hampshire with his wife Holly and Min Pin Jackdog. He writes a weekly column for a local newspaper and many of his other pieces are widely published. His works focus on issues and themes dealing with socio-political topics, business, patriotism, and individual freedom. They are frequently inspirational in nature and sometimes reflect the Objectivist philosophy of novelist Ayn Rand.
May 1st, 2008 by 
Administrator 
Comments Off