Darwin Vs. the Old Time Religion: What's It All About?
(By D. D. Delaney, Port Folio Weekly, Jan. 30, 2007)
On Dec. 20, 2005, Judge John E. Jones III of the U.S. Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled a resolution unconstitutional which the Dover, PA, School Board of Directors had passed mandating that "(s)tudents will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design."
Jones' 139-page opinion in the widely publicized Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District has, for the time being, stymied persistent efforts of the faithful to force the concept of a divine creator into the curricula of American public school science classes as an alternative or complement to the teaching of evolution.
But, says Paul Rasor, director of the Center for the Study of Religious Freedom at Virginia Wesleyan College, while the issue "might be settled temporarily because of the influence of this one opinion, if history is any indication I would say it's not done."
Historically, concern among Christian fundamentalists about teaching evolution in public schools "comes and goes over the past 80 years," says Rasor, "and now it's coming again." Accordingly, because "we thought it would be of some interest to the public and to our students," the Center has scheduled a six-week spring symposium, Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design: Religion and Science in the Public Schools.
"Our purpose," he says, "is to educate people about this. We'll try to provide a forum for discussion...from the perspective of law, of science, of education, and of cultural history...so if and when it comes up in particular school districts they will...make more informed decisions."
Rasor will launch the symposium's first session, Thursday, Feb. 1, with the topic, "Crossing the Lines: God, Public Schools and the Constitution."
"I'll go through a lot of the court cases...and use my talk as a way to set up the lecture series," which will take up a range of social and cultural issues in weekly sessions.
Over the years, beginning with the famous "Scopes Monkey Trial" of 1925, which found a Dayton, TN, high school biology teacher guilty of teaching evolution in violation of state law, courts have been asked to resolve disputes over what role, if any, religious belief may legally play in classrooms. It's a constitutional issue because the "establishment clause" of the first amendment in the U.S. Bill of Rights states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
Consistently and incrementally, beginning with a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Epperson v. Arkansas which threw out a state-wide ban on teaching evolution, the courts have interpreted that clause as prohibiting either creationism or intelligent design from mixing or competing with Darwin's theory in public school classrooms.
Creationism, sometimes called "scientific creationism," holds that the world was set in motion by a supernatural supreme being, as recorded, for instance, in the Book of Genesis. "The term isn't used in these cases anymore," says Rasor, since the Supreme Court established in Edwards v. Arkansas (1987) that creationism is a religious theory prohibited under the establishment clause.
Rather, as testimony in Kitzmiller established, anti-evolution forces, revising their terms, brought forth the theory of intelligent design (ID)?-"the claim," says Rasor, "that the universe is so complex it must have been created by an intelligent higher being. The controversy is the intelligent design folks arguing it is...an alternative scientific view to evolution and ought to be taught as a science."
But after hearing testimony from scientists, theologians, and teachers, Judge Jones ruled in an opinion "so thorough, so well reasoned?-an amazing job of analyzing constitutional law"?-that ID is a religious theory whose "real goal is not just to promote (the believers') view...but to challenge or get rid of evolution. It is a strategy linked to a long-term campaign" to impose religion in public schools.
Citing findings in a 1982 federal case, Jones wrote, "The religious movement known as Fundamentalism began in nineteenth century America as a response to social changes, new religious thought and Darwinism.
ID, then ?- a religious view ?- can only be taught, says Rasor, "if you're teaching...different religious traditions as history or literature or comparative religion. But you couldn't have a religious course where a particular religious view is taught as truth."
And though ID certainly cannot be taught as a science, "evolution could be intelligent design" with "a designer who started the process." But that's still "a religious theory" because, unlike scientific theories, "it is not subject to testing or disproving."
Evolution "doesn't really take a stand on whether there's a creator. That's not a part of evolutionary science."
On Feb. 8 Dr. James Gilbert, distinguished professor of history at the University of Maryland, will discuss the deeper cultural and historical forces which keep the issue alive in "Religion versus Science: Why Does It Matter?"
On Feb. 15 Dr. John E. Haught, research professor at Georgetown University's Dept. of Theology, will explore whether God and evolution need be mutually exclusive in his talk, "Evolution and Faith: What Is a Stake?"
Science has its say on Feb. 22 when Drs. Paul M. Resslar and Philip Rock of the Virginia Wesleyan Biology Dept. present "How Do Biologists View Creationism and Intelligent Design?"
The view from public school classrooms will be presented on March 1 by Ginger L. Ferris and Dr. B. Malcolm Lively of VWC's Education Dept. Their topic is "Creationism, Intelligent Design, Evolution: What's a Teacher To Do?"
The symposium closes on March 8 with a look at the future when Kent Greenawalt of Columbia University Law School tackles the subject, "Science and Religion in the Public Schools: What Next?"
