MR. HENNINGER: How we got here -- and whether our schools should teach evolutionary theory as the answer -- is consistently one of the nation's hot-button issues. Never more than now as 21 states consider allowing their schools to teach alternatives to evolution. One of them is called "intelligent design" the idea that life is too complex to have been created without the work of some intelligent force. Nowhere is this argument further along than in Dover, Pennsylvania, where it's at the center of both a school board election and a federal lawsuit.
Correspondent Lisa Rudolph has this briefing:
LISA RUDOLPH : The sleepy farm community of Dover, population 25,000. Only an hour outside of Philadelphia, but here time seems slower, neighbors closer and deep-rooted Christian faith as much a part of town history as the Revolutionary War. A town now at war with itself divided by, of all things, a battle over biology.
MAN: Who's right? Who's wrong?
MAN 2: And they start calling you names and they think you're dumb because you're a Christian, you know what I mean?
WOMAN: If they want to learn about this stuff go to church. That's why they have church.
MAN 3: Darwin took us forward to a hilltop. We must not abandon faith!
LISA RUDOLPH: Eighty years after the Scopes Monkey Trial it's the same debate over science, God and the separation of church and state in public schools.
REV. DAVID SPROULL: It seems at times everybody has freedom of speech except when you use the word "God" and that can't be.
MAN 2: Will you all please rise?
LISA RUDOLPH: Last fall the Dover School Board voted to require teachers to read a four paragraph statement that Darwin's theory of evolution is only one theory -- not fact. It does not specifically mention God. Instead encouraging students to keep an open mind about the origin of life and referring them to the theory called intelligent design. It says life is so complex a higher power must have created us. Dover biology teachers refuse to read the statement.
WOMAN: By us reading it, it was giving the idea of intelligent design legitimacy as a scientific theory.
LISA RUDOLPH: Instead Dover administrators read the statement. But if the goal was to encourage critical thinking it sure didn't seem that way to students like Daniel Yaguvich.
STUDENT: I don't think anyone actually knew what intelligent design was after hearing the statement and they didn't want anyone to ask any questions.
LISA RUDOLPH: So nobody got to ask or discuss anything about this.
DANIEL YAGUVICH: No. There was no discussion. It's just this is what it is, we're gone.
LISA RUDOLPH: Eleven local parents represented by the American Civil Liberties Union are now suing the school board for violating the constitutional separation of church and state and the 1987 Supreme Court ruling that bans creationism from being taught as a science.
RICHARD THOMPSON: If they hold that this is constitutionally permissible what you will see happen across this nation intelligent design popping up in all kinds of school boards.
LISA RUDOLPH: And that's exactly what you want to happen.
RICHARD THOMPSON: Absolutely.
LISA RUDOLPH: Richard Thompson, head of the Christian Legal Defense Group representing Dover's school board, says while there have been challenges to evolution education proposed or acted upon in several states this year Dover was the first to single out intelligent design as an alternative.
Do you see this as just the beginning?
RICHARD THOMPSON: Oh yeah. I think whether it's our case or some other case Darwin's going down the tube.
LISA RUDOLPH: No question.
RICHARD THOMPSON: No question about it.
DR. EUGENIE SCOTT: One of the longstanding creationist arguments is that evolution is unusually weak. It has a lot of gaps or problems in it and this is nonsense.
LISA RUDOLPH: Dr. Eugenie Scott runs the National Center for Science Education.
DR. DUGENIE SCOTT: The idea that intelligent design is not a way of slipping religion into the classroom is ludicrous.
LISA RUDOLPH: A recent CBS News poll found nearly 65 percent of Americans are in favor of teaching creationism along with evolution in schools. 37 percent favor banning evolution entirely.
Do you not believe in evolution?
SHARON: No, I really don't. I believe in God.
LISA RUDOLPH: In Dover every supporter we talked to, like this group of bus drivers in Jim and Nina's Pizzeria, was clear about the only reason they did want intelligent design taught to their children.
WOMAN: There's so much bad going on in the schools that what is wrong to have religion back in with the schools again? There is too much separation of church and state.
LISA RUDOLPH: Jeff and Carol Brown, long time school board members resigned in protest.
Would you say the school board is more interested in putting intelligent design in the classroom or religion?
CAROL BROWN: Religion.
JEFF BROWN: Religion.
LISA RUDOLPH: So, who are we kidding here to say that that is not what is the primary motivation for this?
JEFF BROWN: Well if the courts say the schools have to be religiously neutral then they have to take out Darwin's theory of evolution because Darwin's theory of evolution posits an atheistic or secular humanist religion.
LISA RUDOLPH: There has not been one court in this land that has ever said that evolution is a religion.
JEFF BROWN: Well no one has tried it yet.
LISA RUDOLPH: So this case is one way of eroding the separation of church and state.
JEFF BROWN: No, it's going back to what our Founding Fathers thought they were doing. And you have to also understand that over 76 percent of Americans are Christians.
LISA RUDOLPH: In the end it may all boil down to money. In one of the poorest districts in the state the looming court battle could mean bankruptcy.
The ACLU has said that it is going to run up legal bills like this town has never seen. Is it worth it?
DAVID SPROULL: If you believe in something strong enough anything's worth it.
GARY SUTTON: We're trying to find out I think in this country right now how we bridge the gap between our religion and our other beliefs that we have. And so I think you see a little of that coming to the forefront here in a place like Dover. It could be any Dover in any part of the country.
LISA RUDOLPH: I'm Lisa Rudolph for THE JOURNAL EDITORIAL REPORT.
MR. HENNINGER: Joining me to discuss this subject are:
Kim Strassel, a senior writer for the editorial board, Jason Riley, also a senior writer for the editorial board, and Professor Niall Shanks of Wichita State University, author of GOD, THE DEVIL, AND DARWIN, A CRITIQUE OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY.
Professor Shanks welcome to our program.
PROFESSOR SHANKS: Thank you very much for having me on the show.
MR. HENNINGER: You know, part of me thinks that Charles Darwin himself would be a little taken aback at finding himself in the middle of this fight. I mean he was essentially a scientist who posited the idea of natural selection across the ages. Yes somehow he is standing athwart; secular science on one hand and religious belief on the other. How does it come to this? How did we arrive at this point?
PROFESSOR SHANKS: Well, Darwin himself started out life as a deeply religious man and he was led to I think an agnostic's position by the end of his life. But Darwin has unfortunately become the poster boy for atheism and in a country like ours where religion plays such an important role in the life of the nation he's become a symbol. And this is very unfortunate because it's brought about a needless conflict between science and religion; a conflict that doesn't really have to be there.
MR. HENNINGER: But I think the feeling exists out there, and obviously our tape suggested it, that science and religion, science and God are mutually exclusive domains. That one cannot discuss evolution in the context of religion or religious faith because evolution does subject itself to rational proofs whereas with God one simply cannot do that sort of thing.
PROFESSOR SHANKS: I think this is again possibly a popular misconception. The theory of evolution does not imply atheism. That's not to say there aren't atheists who are evolutionary biologists. But many evolutionary biologists are actually practicing Christians. The late pop had no problem with evolution as well as the Catholic faith.
For many scientists who are deeply religious they accept the theory of evolution but see the importance of the Bible lying in its moral message and there are others who are what are called theistic evolutionists. That is to say they accept the theory of evolution but see it as a mechanism by which God works His wonders beautiful to behold.
There must necessarily be a conflict between science and religion. It is I think a mistaken position but one that's generated an awful lot of heated debate.
MR. HENNINGER: Exactly right. Kim?
KIM STRASSEL: Well one thing I've always been curious about: evolutionary biologists, one of the their complaints about intelligent design is that they claim it isn't really a body of evidence in itself, but it sort of exists to poke holes in evolutionary biology and they take great exception to this. One question I've always had, and I'd love to hear what Niall had to say about this, was how could that possibly be such a bad thing? One of the things the evolutionary biologists say is that their field has been great because it's led to a lot of answers, a lot of experiments and to the extent that intelligent design continues to question things and asks people to prove things and to also explain gaps in their theories. How can that possibly be bad?
PROFESSOR SHANKS: Well, I think that critical thinking is an integral part of science. The question is whether the intelligent design theory is bringing about genuine critical thinking about scientific theories or whether it's just there is a device for what one might call Darwin baiting. I'm afraid to say that I'm inclined to think that it is much more involved with Darwin baiting than it is about raising serious critical questions which do need to be asked of any scientific theory. Nothing is chiseled in stone in science. All theories are revisable in the light of new evidence. The trouble is we don't have any evidence here with intelligent design theory.
JASON RILEY: We've been discussing this up here, but down at this level what some of these debates are about specifically is of interest. In the case of Dover you have people wanting to insert an alternative theory or Darwinism such as intelligent design or creationism into the classroom. But in Kansas and in other states that's not what the debate is centered on. What the debate is centered on is whether we should be teaching scientifically based criticism of evolution and I find it interesting that the evolutionary theorists resist that as well.
There are reputable scientists who have no dog in the fight over intelligent design who say we're not teaching kids evolutionary theory properly. We should be teaching them theories and criticisms of the theory itself and the evolutionary scientists don't want that brought into the classroom as well. I think that's a perfectly reasonable position to have. In other words the evolutionists, some of them, want to paint anyone who criticizes evolution as being some sort of Jesus freak and that's simply not the case.
MR. HENNINGER: Professor Shanks, what exactly is at stake here? Because if you read the science journals like SCIENCE MAGAZINE¸ and they'll have an article about the fight in Kansas and it will quote scientists rallying the scientific community to come forth and fight against the sort of thing that's happening in Dover. What do they feel is at stake? What do they think is threatened by a movement like this?
PROFESSOR SHANKS: I think that what they think is threatened is not so much biology education, it is science education itself. We have done a rather bad job teaching science in this country and I think that what they're frightened about is that we're going to end up doing a much worse job if we're not careful. Of course legitimate criticisms of any scientific theory are welcomed by serious scientists. But when you generate spurious criticisms of a theory, now I'm not suggesting that the legitimate scientists you mentioned or alluded to are in this batch, but the trouble with intelligent design theory is that it makes more mischief than it does good by promoting critical thinking. As I've said before, critical thinking is always valuable and an integral part of science. But you can't just call any alternative to a scientific theory critical thinking. You need to do more than just label it as such or declare it to be legitimate science. It's got to be rooted in evidence and intelligent design theory currently isn't. Maybe it will be one day but it isn't now.
KIM STRASSEL: Doesn't this get to the question though of how much evidence there actually is the facts that underlie evolutionary biology themselves? I mean one of the reason that ID theorists have had in opening is because they make the argument that there are great holes in this theory that haven't been properly or adequately explained yet.
PROFESSOR SHANKS: Well, I think it's certainly true of any scientific theory that there are always going to be unexplained phenomena, that's what keeps us busy in science; trying to figure out how to solve those puzzles and problems. The problem with intelligent design theory is that it points a hole that sometimes are quite illusory they're just not there and that's what muddies the issue.
JASON RILEY: But you can teach the theory of evolution to children. Teach the strengths and weaknesses of this theory without introducing intelligent design or creationism.
PROFESSOR SHANKS: Absolutely.
JASON RILEY: And I think that would satisfy a lot of people engaged in this debate that we saw in this segment, that we do that.
PROFESSOR SHANKS: One of my complaints is that in fact evolution is taught so badly that by the time students come out of school their understanding, if they have any at all, is of the theory that bears little resemblance to current evolutionary biology. I mean it's usually the last chapter in the biology book. It's the one that teachers don't like to spend too much time on. But you're absolutely right, in any theory, even the theory of evolution though this may sound heretical to some, there are unanswered questions.
MR. HENNINGER: But it has reached a point where it's a raw political bite as the tape suggested. I mean the fellow at the end of this said "Darwin's going down the tubes". That's a fairly extreme position to take in this fight, but that's what it's come to.
PROFESSOR SHANKS: Yeah, and I think it's unfortunate because the theory of evolution isn't about Charles Darwin anymore. Charles Darwin originated the theory. But you know there have been enormous contributions to evolutionary biology from diverse figures over the last 150 years. I prefer to call it evolutionary biology rather than Darwin's theory.
KIM STRASSEL: It does seem worthwhile noting though that one of the reasons this has become a religious fight, a lot of people look at the ID theorists and say you're trying to bring religion into this. But what's fascinating is that there have actually been some evolutionary biologists who have made it as much an issue about religion themselves. I mean Richard Dawkins is a sort of committed atheist and he likes to say that Darwin is one of the reasons that he's able to exist as an atheist.
PROFESSOR SHANKS: Well now Richard Dawkins claims that he is an intellectually fulfilled atheist. But I think that you'll find that many evolutionary biologists are intellectually fulfilled Christians. They're obviously not creationists, but they have found ways to reconcile their faith with their science.
JASON RILEY: And I would add that I think the larger picture here is that these school boards and some of these individuals we saw in our segment feel beset by this debate. And one of the reasons I think is that it's of a piece with their frustration with issues over prayer in schools or taking God out of the Pledge of Allegiance and matters like that, public displays of the Ten Commandments, those sorts of things. It is a frustration that comes from the cultural and media elites showing pretty much contempt for people with religious values. I think what you're saying in some of these debates over evolution is a little push back.
PROFESSOR SHANKS: I also think that if we were a little clearer in our science education about the distinction between understanding science and believing something we'd be doing much better. I want my students to understand evolutionary biology. If at the end of the day when the class is over and the grades are handed in they come and say to me "I don't believe any of this, doc" then I say that's fine, as long as you're able to demonstrate an understanding.
MR. HENNINGER: Thanks a lot Professor Shanks for being with us.
PROFESSOR SHANKS: And thank you very much for having me.
