Another View for January 19, 2006
By J. Brent Walker
Executive Director, Baptist Joint Committee
The debate over whether and how to teach evolution in the public schools continues 80 years after the Scopes “monkey trial” in Tennessee. Now the dispute itself has also evolved into a pitched battle in the larger culture wars.
President Bush has declared his support for the inclusion of “intelligent design” in the curriculum of public schools. Last month, eight members of the Dover County, Pa., School Board were voted out of office after adopting a policy that mandated the introduction of intelligent design in biology class. The policy provoked a federal lawsuit and led a Bush-appointed judge to find it “abundantly clear” that the teaching of intelligent design in science class is unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court has been clear about teaching religious theories of origin in public school science classes. Banning the teaching of “creationism,” the Court said, “There is and can be no doubt that the First Amendment does not permit the State to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma” (Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 106 [1968]). The Court also ruled unconstitutional a “Balanced Treatment Act,” which sought to require the teaching of creationism where evolution is taught (Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 587 [1987]).
In the aftermath of these rulings, opponents of evolution adopted other strategies. Some tried to spruce up creationism by positing the concept of intelligent design, arguing that nature is so complicated that one must infer a designer of some sort. Although its advocates do not name the designer, the concept is no more than creationism with a little lipstick. Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer calls the anti-evolution movement a “national embarrassment” and palming off intelligent design as science a “fraud.”
As a Baptist minister, I believe in an intelligent designer whom I unabashedly call God. But this is a religious affirmation, not a scientific proposition suitable for inclusion in a science classroom.
Others have sought to attack evolution itself by claiming evolution is not a fact but only a theory. This ignores the overwhelming support for evolution in the scientific community. It also fails to appreciate that a scientific theory is not a mere hunch, but a model that has endured scrutiny under the scientific method, even if it fails to supply all the answers.
Finally, some have tried to use intelligent design to drive a wedge between religion and science. This is a false dichotomy. Evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive. As former President Jimmy Carter, both a scientist and devout Baptist, wrote in his recent book, Our Endangered Values, people of faith who take the Bible seriously and appreciate good science can comfortably embrace both. Both seek truth, but in different ways. One tries to answer the “who” and “why” questions through faith; the other addresses the “how” through scientific inquiry.
But the idea of intelligent design need not be ignored in the public schools. It can be discussed and debated in the appropriate context-such as in a comparative religion course examining theories of origin or in a social studies class that teaches the controversy itself. Nor does it mean that evolution cannot be critiqued in science classes. But such challenges must be based on science and launched by scientists, not theologians.
Proponents of intelligent design should abandon their efforts to stoke the flames of the culture war by forcing these divisive and religious tenets into science classes. Instead, they should seek ways to promote their religious beliefs in their homes, churches, private schools and the public square, and, if they desire, seek appropriate inclusion in public schools' religion and social studies curricula.
A failure to appreciate this common sense understanding of the relationship between religion and science threatens to make monkeys of us all.