Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Warning Label on Darwin Sows Division in Suburbia
Warning Label on Darwin Sows Division in Suburbia
Parents in Cobb County, Ga., Clash Over Sticker in Textbooks
By Peter Whoriskey
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 11, 2005; A03

MARIETTA, Ga. -- The evolution controversy in this comfortable Atlanta suburb began with one boy's fascination with dinosaurs.

"He was really into 'Jurassic Park,' " his mother recalled. The trouble was, "we kept reading over and over that 'millions and millions of years ago, dinosaurs roamed the earth,' " Marjorie Rogers continued. "And that's where I said, 'Hmm -- wait a second.' "

Like others who adhere to a literal reading of the Book of Genesis, Rogers, a lawyer, believes that Earth is several thousand years old, while most scientists, basing their estimates on the radioactive decay of rock samples, say the planet is billions of years old.

Rogers soon began a quest to challenge what she sees as educators' blind faith in evolution. It evoked a groundswell of support from other residents of this affluent suburb of high-tech office parks and shopping malls, and it pushed the county school board to put warning labels on biology textbooks saying that evolution "is a theory, not a fact."

The measure effectively made Cobb a battleground in the national debate on evolution because the textbook stickers, in turn, prompted a lawsuit in federal court from other parents who see the labels as an unwelcome intrusion of religious thought into public life.

But as both sides prepare to restate their arguments before a federal appeals court this week, many others in Cobb County are having a different reaction: Not again.

The fast-growing suburb of about 650,000 people northwest of Atlanta -- in many ways similar to Loudoun and Fairfax counties in Virginia -- has long shown a remarkable flair for high-profile social controversy.

While other municipalities flirted with banning guns, leaders in Kennesaw, a city in northern Cobb, passed a law requiring heads of household to own a firearm and ammunition. In the '90s, county commissioners approved a resolution frowning on the "lifestyles advocated by the gay community" -- which caused protests and led organizers of the 1996 Summer Olympics to move an event out of the county. Cobb has been to federal court over a Ten Commandments display at the county courthouse and is being sued over the number of invocations at county commission meetings that mention Jesus.

While elsewhere these sorts of social controversies often play out as a clash between urban and rural cultures, what interests political scientists and other onlookers is that the debates in Cobb County pit suburbanites against suburbanites.

The protagonists in the stickers case are typical. Rogers is a BMW-driving graduate of the University of Georgia who plays tennis twice a week and says her life is wrapped around caring for her two sons. Jeffrey Selman, the lead plaintiff in the case to remove the stickers, is a tech worker who belonged to the same tennis group and lives with his wife and son in a Colonial-style subdivision that backs up to a lake. Both moved to Cobb County from elsewhere: Rogers is a self-described "Navy brat," and Selman is Bronx-born.

Neither had been involved in local politics before.

"Marjorie believes and follows blindly," Selman says over a meal at his favorite Chinese vegetarian restaurant. "I question. It's part of my culture. . . . My mother says, 'You got too much principle.' I say, 'Whose fault is that?' "

While in many metropolitan areas inner urban neighborhoods are reliably more liberal and rural areas reliably more conservative, fast-growing suburban or exurban places, with their promise of large numbers of votes and unformed affiliations, have become a coveted demographic for politicians on both sides.

In the 2004 presidential election, 97 of the 100 fastest-growing counties voted for George W. Bush. On the other hand, slightly older suburbs, such as Fairfax County, voted Democratic for the first time since 1964.

Exactly what shapes the political character of a suburb is a matter of debate.

In Cobb, County Board of Commissioners Chairman Sam Olens said the controversies over social issues do not reflect typical values held there, but he said that for household logistics, the county "tilts conservative."

"A lot of us moved here because of the low taxes, low crime and great education," he said. "We're all sick and tired of paying too much in taxes."

Robert E. Lang, who studies growth and demographics at Virginia Tech, says that people generally select a place to live based on practical reasons -- proximity to work, prices, size and so on. But politically, there appears to be a little bit of "self-selection going on," he said. "People like to move to places where they know the people will think like they do."

Cobb is solidly Republican -- 62 percent of voters cast ballots for Bush in 2004 -- but there is enough political diversity to create strong and sometimes unexpected conflicts.

After the anti-gay resolution was passed, the board chairman's daughter held a news conference to say she is a lesbian -- and to denounce the measure. And the current county chairman, Olens, who is in the position of having to defend the commission prayers for invoking Jesus, is Jewish.

He defended the prayers by saying that leaders from all the local houses of worship are invited to offer the invocation.

"My preference would be a nonsectarian prayer," he said. "But it's not my place to tell a minister how he should lead us in prayer."

While Cobb County is home to Kennesaw State University, a major facility for Lockheed Martin Corp. and numerous high-tech businesses, a substantial number of residents appear to have profound doubts about the scientific establishment's embrace of evolution, which the National Academy of Sciences describes as "the central unifying concept of biology."

Wes McCoy, a teacher at North Cobb High School who has surveyed classes for a doctoral dissertation on teaching evolution, estimates that a third of students there are uncomfortable with the subject.

"I'm sure they're told by their parents, 'Go ahead and listen to the lessons, but you don't have to believe them,' " said McCoy, who holds workshops for teachers on how to present evolution. "Some teachers aren't comfortable with it themselves."

When Cobb County turned to selecting new biology textbooks in late 2001, that widespread unease developed into parent anger that spurred the school board to action.

Sparked by her son's interest in dinosaurs, Rogers read several books casting doubt on evolution science, including "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells and "Darwin on Trial" by Phillip E. Johnson. Once she saw the textbooks under consideration, she was appalled.

"Humans are fundamentally not exceptional because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species," she read from one during an interview.

"That offends me," she said. "That has no business being in a science textbook. That's religion."

She points to another passage, in "Biology: Concepts & Connections," that she says is irreverent. The passage suggests that had human knees and spines been "designed" for our bipedal posture, rather than borrowed from four-legged ancestors, they probably would "be less subject to sprains, spasms and other common injuries."

Finding fault with the design of humans exasperates her.

"That's slamming God," she said.

Her disappointment with the texts led her to launch a petition drive among friends and church groups that netted 2,300 signatures. After a contentious meeting, the school board voted to affix the stickers to several textbooks, warning: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

Board members described it as a way of accommodating the divergent views in the community -- to "safeguard" the feelings of the students -- while continuing to teach evolution.

But after hearing Selman's case, presented by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union, U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper in January ordered the stickers removed.

An "informed, reasonable observer would interpret the Sticker to convey a message of endorsement of religion," he wrote. The sticker "sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders."

The school board has appealed, and arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit are scheduled for Thursday.

The U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Epperson v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard are precedents which affect the outcome of the Cobb County "sticker" case. Law Professor Steven Gey summarizes the meaning of these precedents:

Some students from a christian school has filed a suit against the University of California, because they will not allow the teachings of creationism and ID as credit towards entrance into their university.

Corn on the cob.



If the dear lady thought that irreverent it is a good job they drew a veil over the human vulva.

I thought vulvas were imported from Sweden by Ford.

Yes, Dys, there were no vulvas in the States before..

That isn't as witty as Darwin's best cracks on the subject.

Perhaps I am wrong, could have been sobs that are imported by Ford?

spendius,

The school parent in the Cobb County case asked her school board to take an anti-evolution measure. This is the opposite of the case in Dover (where school parents opposed their school board's anti-evolution measure.)

In your opinion, are the school parents in both cases wrong?

Since your motivation on this issue appears to be a distaste for activist school parents, I am afraid your answer will be yes. That would mean the actual scientific or legal issue in anti-evolution cases is not relevant for you.

(If I had asked something like this in court, your attorney would ask the judge to throw me out.)

wande-

You're right.I don't think parents should be allowed anywhere near education.It is a job for professionals who are preparing children for the future use of the nation and not for parents who are seeking simply the confirmation of the superiority of their genes.One only has to think of th effort required to be entrusted with administrative educational care compared with the effort required to become parents which is within the range of rabbits.I think nepotism is the ruination of everything it touches which is why I require a celibate priesthood.

As far as getting thrown out of the court for a measly jest is concerned it ought to be borne in mind that it was more than a jest and was intended to point up why this issue generates such emotion.
My attorney would have laughed just like any RC Archbishop would have although he would also have been surprised at an SDer undermining his own case by referring to this area.SDers are notable for their reticence in theology to things above the knees.But if items of anatomy are to be offered for consideration a scientist wouldn't dream of demarcations and Darwin didn't although he handled the matter more delicately than I did which is understandable given the fashions in piano legs at the time he was writing.

Parents,and especially bourgeois parents,will find ways to distort recruitment procedures.Try to imagine a situation where the sportsmen in,say,the England football team could get their own sons into their shirts when they retired.I think the resulting team would find it difficult to give the US Ladies soccer team a game.Don't you?

excellent post Spendius. Rabbits breed but they dont educate. And everyone knows at least one well bred person or rabbit. (Still struggling with brother Flaubert btw)

wande-

I'll push home this scientific point a bit harder.

In our top football (soccer) league we have 20 teams with an average squad size of 18.That's 360 top players.In all the time of its existence I can only recall two players out of,maybe,3000 whose fathers had played at this level and neither played for England and didn't stand out in any way.And all soccer players will try to encourage their sons in this direction.

Nepotism stinks.Rots.It didn't apply when the West was won.That's what 1789 was all about.

so you reject hereditary monarchy presumably?

Most certainly if it has decisive power.In the service of imports,spectacle and general entertainment it has my wholehearted support as long as it is confined within narrow and special limits.Malinowsky describes a case in point.

The great difficulty with nepotism is that it is natural and thus understandable.One could hardly expect most human beings not to take advantage of their positions to exalt their offspring.This is why only institutional structures can deal with it.There is NO CHANCE of Catholic priests being allowed to marry.It would be a death warrant for the Church.

spendius
Other denominations have a good financial state even with clergy being married. When the Catholic Church banned marriage for the clergyit never figured on having to pay out such huge settlements for diddling the altar boys.
Perhaps it would have been cheaper in the long run to allow the priests to stay married back then. Sorta become like the Orthodox Christian sects.

I also do not believe the marriage of priests will be a death-knell for the catholic church. Religion has more to do with individual faith and belief. Marriage or celibacy has to do with church rules that doesn't affect the members.

I would use the word "naive" if there wasn't the word "naife" to go at.

Should Catholic Priests Marry or Remain Celibate?
The opposition to ending the requirement of celibacy for Catholic priests is strong - but isn't it strange that, despite this requirement, there are so many married Catholic priests who seem to be doing as good a job as unmarried priests? If celibacy is so vital, why do married Catholic priests exist at all?

Perhaps you didn't know that married Catholic priests exist. They do - but that isn't something that the Roman Catholic Church is anxious to advertise. They'd much rather keep the matter quiet in order not to "confuse" rank and file Catholics. In this context, "confuse" seems to mean "let them know that when we say that celibacy is a requirement, we don't really mean that it is necessary."

It's a curious thing: the Catholic Church is quite clear that priests have to be celibate, but it has also been made clear that celibacy is not necessary.

Answers your Catholic questions. Stop by. From the Franciscans.
www.OnceCatholic.org

In the 1967 encyclical Sacerdotalis Caelibatus, written to reinforce the "Sacredness of Celibacy" in the face of growing calls to rethink the traditional requirement, Pope Paul VI explained that while celibacy is a "dazzling jewel," it is not:
"...required by the nature of the priesthood itself. This is clear from the practice of the early church itself and the traditions of the Eastern churches."
Let's be absolutely clear about that: there is nothing, absolutely nothing whatsoever, about the nature of the priesthood which makes celibacy necessary or essential. As the encyclical admits, no other conclusion is possible considering both the past history and the present circumstances of Christianity.

Sheer sophistry.They will say anything and construct convoluted word plays ad infinitum to try to prove that the man who is subject to the temptations of Jezebel is somehow superior to the man who can stand off such animalistic impulses and by so doing can crush his own subjectivity in the interests of progress.Failure to achieve such self control can easily result in spending whole weekends leafing through soft furnishing catalouges or visiting home improvement emporia of one sort or another.

A history of the church would explain much of this mumbo jumbo. During the Middle Ages somehow the Papal post was a political position and it so happened there were two or three Popes each challenging the authority of the others. The Borgias were corrupt and there were rumors of affairs or even (?) incest. You must know that the original church was the Orthodox Church. The Roman Catholic Church broke off from it based on Jesus' "upon this rock shall my church stand" after renaming one of his Disciples to Peter meaning the 'Rock'. Incidently, under the Temple Mount is a giant rock, about the size of a football field. So all the talk referring to rock as the temple is really this rock.