Darwinian Evolution: Science or Religion?
A Response to Derrel Watkins
By Carolyn Dipboye
Thank you for your response. I, too, have little appreciation for group think and its propensity for building
hedges beyond which creative thinking and investigation may not go. If I regarded such dogmatism as the basis for scientists` and educators` reluctance to grant intelligent design the status of scientific theory, I would take issue as well. I do not judge that to be the case.
The article to which you respond was originally presented to the Oak Ridge [Tennessee] Forum on Religion and Science, organized four years ago to provide a meeting place for area scientists, scholars, laity, and clergy. As we who have been involved have worked to learn something of one another`s language, methodology, and conclusions, I have encountered the scientific community, not as fearful, but positively gleeful at the prospect of wrestling with challenges. As one person put it, "Scientists love nothing more than to prove one another wrong!" Or as another observed, science is not about the task of "circling the wagons. As a matter of fact, there is no surer way of getting a free ticket to Stockholm [to receive a Nobel Prize]" than to successfully poke a hole in the accepted science of the day. That glee comes to an end when religion seeks to impose its answers and methodologies upon science. And that, it seems to me is the crux of the problem.
I readily affirm those for whom intelligent design (ID) is a statement of faith in God as creator of a purposeful universe. I also understand that those who know far more of the complexities of the universe than I may view those complexities through the eyes of faith, interpreting them as pointers to the God in whom they believe. Religious faith rightly addresses questions of origin, but as I indicated in my article, faith`s questions reflect upon purpose and meaning–questions of "who" and "why" rather than "how." Institutions or persons of faith act inappropriately when they seek to render their faith statements as conclusions of science or their view of God as the presupposition from which science proceeds.
The Ohio Board of Education decision to which you refer demonstrates the problem well. On February 14, 2006, the Ohio Board of Education voted to remove the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson plan from the state`s model K-12 science curriculum and deleted from its standards for science education the requirement that students be informed concerning "how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." When viewed in isolation, the decision may seem to smack of a cave-in to vested interests. The tortured path by which that decision was reached, however, speaks volumes.
The science standards were hammered out in a politically charged atmosphere with the American Family Association of Ohio [www.sciohio.org], the Intelligent Design Network (headquartered in an equally embroiled Kansas) [www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org] and the Discovery Institute of Seattle [www.discovery.org] as prominent players. The standards presented to the Ohio Board of Education by the standards committee (teachers, scientists and others selected by the Ohio Department of Education) received high marks for their handling of science, particularly in light of the fact that the 1996 standards had not even included the word "evolution."
The controversial provision calling for the inclusion of "evidence against evolution" was added by the Board of Education after the committee had completed its work. Responding to criticism of the change, the board added a disclaimer assuring critics that the benchmark did "not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design."
Admittedly, the model lesson plan prepared to accompany the disputed benchmark did not use the words "intelligent design." Its structure and content, however, were largely lifted from Icons of Evolution, authored by leading ID proponent Jonathan Wells. The plan`s bibliography, originally presented to the board by the Discovery Institute`s Center for Renewal of Science and Culture Director Stephen Meyer and Senior Fellow Jonathan Wells, was briefly celebrated on the institute`s web site as featuring "intelligent design scientists." Some of the lesson plan`s most glaring scientific errors were remedied and its bibliography modified prior to approval by a seriously divided board. Yet a number of issues remained—e.g., the inclusion of scientists who disputed the portrayal of their work as a critique of evolution, the favoring of ID and "theistic philosophy" web sites, and the unsubstantiated challenges to various aspects of evolution.
Several factors finally came together prompting the Ohio Board of Education to vote 11-4 in February 2006 to remove the disputed benchmark and lesson plan. Strongly worded condemnations from the National Academy of Sciences, the Ohio Academy of Sciences, Ohio Citizens for Science, and the Inter-University Council of Ohio distinguished between an appropriate appreciation for religious faith and treating religion as science. Negative sentiments were accentuated by the revelation of three significant pieces of information—(1) the Ohio Department of Education had strongly opposed the board`s inclusion of the disputed benchmark; (2) the 55 member advisory and writing committee responsible for the lesson plan had included only 3 scientists, two of whom were creationists; and (3) a large majority of the committee that had originally drawn up the standards issued a stinging rebuke. The final and decisive factor was Judge John Jones` December 2005 decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover, which concluded that Dover`s ID policy violated the Establishment clause of the Constitution. "We have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
Although the words "intelligent design" did not appear in the Ohio documents, a brief overview of the principal players and evolution of the debate leave little doubt about its decisive role. Even if one drops reference to a designer in an effort to separate the issue from its religious connotations, serious questions remain. The terminology may shift to terms deemed more appropriate to science, e.g., "critical evaluation of evolution" or "evidences against evolution;" or "micro-evolution" vs. "macro-evolution." The issues raised, however, are not subject to special treatment. They must be submitted to the rigors of scientific research, and repeatedly the verdict comes back that the challenges do not hold up under scrutiny. If critics of various aspects of evolution desire their conclusions to be included in science education classes, it is only appropriate that they must first make their case within the discipline of science.
"Fairness" is not the issue because we have nothing approaching a serious division within the scientific com-munity. The issue is rather how we should deal with material that is at worst inappropriate to science or demonstrably wrong or at best judged as having yet to make its case.
I do agree with you and with those voicing opposition to the disputed benchmark who have repeatedly observed that the issue does not center on an inherent conflict between science and religion. "Teaching the controversy" has its place within a humanities class dedicated to the history of science or comparative religions, and such classes should be included in the curriculum.
