|
COMMENTARY
Beyond
Dover: It Ain’t Over
Readers
are encouraged to take advantage of the many active links in this article.
 |
 |
| |
A
press conference at which Wisconsin State Representative Terese
Berceau announced the introduction of the legislation. To her left
is State Representative Spencer Black. A number of scientists from
the University of Wisconsin joined her.
|
| |
|
Most
of the ASPB membership is probably familiar with the recent ruling by
Judge John E. Jones against the school board of Dover, Pennsylvania, for
its efforts to introduce students in science classrooms to the latest
iteration of creationism, known as intelligent design (ID). Several colleagues
have told me that they are glad this matter is now settled; they presume
that Judge Jones’s decision will preclude similar attempts by other
school boards. However, the decision applies only to the Dover school
district; therefore (paraphrasing the great American philosopher Yogi
Berra, who reportedly said “It ain’t over til it’s over”),
although we are beyond Dover, the movement to place ID into science classrooms
ain’t over.
One reason I suspect
that some of my colleagues thought the “Dover decision” might
have settled this issue is the clarity, logic, and strength of Judge Jones’s
ruling (for example, Judge Jones referred to the Dover school board’s
stance as “breathtaking inanity”). I urge anyone whose interest
in science extends beyond their own field of study to read the decision
(1).
At only 139 double-spaced pages, it’s an easy read and at times quite
entertaining.
After the Dover decision,
proponents of creationism were in the news. For example, former presidential
candidate Pat Robertson declared on his television show, “I’d
like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your
area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And
don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if
they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember,
you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t
ask for His help because he might not be there” (2).
If you are curious as to whether Pat Robertson has much of an audience,
consider the theme of a series of books that have displaced John Grisham’s
novels as the best-selling adult books in the United States (3a;
3b).
A major issue facing
science educators, typified by Robertson’s remarks, was clearly stated
by George V. Coyne, a Catholic priest and director of the Vatican Observatory,
in a recent AAAS-sponsored symposium for science teachers (4):
“One of the biggest problems you teachers face, and I face, and I
hesitated very long to say this, is evangelical Christianity based on
a literal interpretation of Scripture… It’s deeply rooted in
American culture—we can’t wish it away…Science was born…
[around] the 17th century…How could there be any science in Scripture?
It didn’t exist [when the Scriptures were written].” I would
add to Reverend Coyne’s point that perhaps the biggest threat is
from those who exploit a literal interpretation of Scripture for political
and economic gain; such exploitation benefits from manufacturing controversy.
Many religious leaders
agree with Reverend Coyne’s view about a literal interpretation of
Scripture and that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. For
example, over 10,000 clergy have signed a letter on this topic (5).
The letter has become known as "The Clergy Project"; the project
began in response to an anti-evolution policy passed by a school board
in Grantsburg, Wisconsin.
Recognizing that it
ain’t over, a member of the Wisconsin House of Representatives, Terese
Berceau, and a staff member, Thomas Powell, set out to draft legislation
designed to ensure that only science is presented as such in science classrooms
in the state of Wisconsin. I have been fortunate to have the opportunity,
along with several colleagues, to help prepare this legislation. In fact,
my writing these notes for the ASPB News resulted from the idea that it
might be of interest to reproduce here a recent article from The Journal
of Clinical Investigation (6)
that discusses our efforts in Wisconsin, summarizes some of the history
of the controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution, and provides
several links to web resources on this topic.
However, the article
was too long for this forum. These notes I have written for our newsletter
are meant to serve as an introduction and supplement to the article.
The interaction with Representative Berceau stemmed from an op-ed published
in our local paper by my colleague Mike Cox, entitled “Intelligent
Design Is a Threat, Not a Theory.” Representative Berceau read the
op-ed, contacted Mike, and Mike assembled a group of colleagues to help
draft the legislation. (Writing op-eds or letters to the editor can have
an impact.) The proposed legislation simply states: “The school board
shall ensure that any material presented as science within the school
curriculum complies with all of the following: 1) The material is testable
as a scientific hypothesis and describes only natural processes. 2) The
material is consistent with any description or definition of science adopted
by the National Academy of Sciences.”
The rationale for
the legislation was to provide parents with a clear cause of action if
a school board mandated the introduction of supernatural material into
a science curriculum (that is, to make it easier than it was for the Dover
parents). The legislation does not attempt to ban the teaching of ID;
as noted by Representative Berceau in an interview with our local paper,
“You can even include [ID] in a science class if you want to say
why it’s not a science. Otherwise it should be taught in a history
of religion class or social studies or philosophy.” Note that the
legislation does not target any particular ideology like ID, in part because
the anti-evolutionists are adept at “evolving”— if ID as
such was banned, a new iteration of creationism would undoubtedly reappear
under a different name.
Representative Berceau
held a press conference on February 7, 2006, to announce the legislation.
(Whether this legislation will actually be considered by our legislature
remains to be determined.) The press conference was reported by the Associated
Press wire service. One local television station carried the AP report
on its website and asked readers to vote on whether or not they supported
the legislation. The beginning of the AP report reads as follows:
“Who should have
control over how to teach children about the origins of human life? Two
lawmakers say the decision should be in the hands of the state.
“Democrats Terese
Berceau and Spencer Black are proposing to ban the teaching of intelligent
design as a science.
“The theory [ID]
holds that the universe was created by a ‘supreme being,’ rather
than evolution.”
This is one of many
examples that we all have encountered of misleading statements about science
in the press. The AP report refers to ID as a theory (which scientifically
it is not) and states that ID theory claims the “UNIVERSE was created
by a ‘supreme being,’ rather than evolution,” despite the
fact that evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe.
If one accepts this mainstream media report, a vote in favor of the legislation
is a vote against the idea that God created the universe!
Pending legislation
in several states illustrates that it ain’t over. As noted in a recent
AAAS news release (7),
Across the United States, at least 14 pending laws—including Missouri
HB 1266—differ in language and strategy, but “all would weaken
science education,” said AAAS President Gilbert S. Omenn, professor
of medicine, genetics and public health at the University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor. “The AAAS Board of Directors opposes these attacks on
the integrity of science and science education,” he added. “They
threaten not just the teaching of evolution, but students’ understanding
of the biological, physical, and geological sciences.” A few years
ago there was even an attempt by U.S. Senator Rick Santorum to insert
anti-evolution language into the No Child Left Behind Act (8a;
8b).
If you wish to follow anti-evolution efforts, visit the website of the
National Center for Science Education (http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/);
at this site you can subscribe to e-mail alerts of new developments.
A major force behind
the ID movement is the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, a so-called
think tank. William Dembski is a fellow of the Discovery Institute, and
he had the following comment after the Dover decision (9):
“We can expect agitation for ID and against evolution to continue.
School boards and state legislators may tread more cautiously, but tread
on evolution they will—the culture war demands it!” He called
Representative Berceau’s proposed legislation “a clear sign
that we are winning” (10)
and noted on his website (11):
“I’m offering $1000 to the first teacher in Wisconsin who 1)
challenges this policy (should it be enacted) by teaching ID as science
within a Wisconsin public school science curriculum (social science does
not count); 2) gets him/herself fired, reprimanded, or otherwise punished
in some actionable way; 3) obtains legal representation from a public
interest law firm (e.g., Alliance Defense Fund); and 4) takes this to
trial. I encourage others to contribute in the same way. Thank you, Wisconsin.”
In addition to the
references cited above, I found the “expert report” for the
Dover case from Michigan State University professor of philosophy Robert
Pennock quite informative (12;
also see his excellent book, Tower of Babel). If you are curious
about the Dover trial proceedings, a good place to start is with the cross-examination
of the ID proponent Michael Behe (13;
see, for example, pages 32–35, which examine his misuse of evolutionary
trees in his ID book Of Pandas and People). And if you have not
already seen it, view Inherit the Wind, the classic movie about
the Scopes “Monkey Trial” of 1925.
It is critical that
we do whatever we can to promote public understanding of science, but
we academics are often not well equipped with information about how to
get involved. I hope that many of you will find the time to read the JCI
article (6)
and to explore the links embedded in this article, which will take you
to resources from groups that have been on the front lines of this issue
for decades. A good place to start is the National Center for Science
Education (http://www.ncseweb.org/25_ways.asp).
Richard Amasino
ASPB President-Elect
amasino@biochem.wisc.edu
REFERENCES
- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html
- Quote from Pat
Robertson on the 700 Club, November 10, 2005. For a clip of Pat Robertson’s
comments on university faculty from the 700 Club on Tuesday, March 21,
2006, go to http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=19453#4
the 3/21/06 installment of “Right-Wing Outrage.”
- See Nicholas Kristoff’s
article at http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/4/5291
or “American Rapture” at vanityfair.com: http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/articles/051128roco02
- http://www.aaas.org/programs/centers/pe/evoline/index.shtml
- http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/clergy_project.htm
- Attie, A. D., Sober,
E., Numbers, R. L., Amasino, R. M., Cox, B., Berceau, T., Powell, T.,
and Cox, M. M. (2006). Defending science education against intelligent
design: A call to action. J. Clin. Invest. 116:1134–1138. http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/116/5/1134.
- http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0219boardstatement.shtml
- http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10084
or
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol22/283_farewell_to_the_santorum_amend_12_30_1899.asp
- http://www.stnews.org/Commentary-2688.htm
- http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=22610
- http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/date/2006/02/07/
- See Pennock’s
expert report at http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?page_id=12.
- See Transcript
Day 12 PM at http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?page_id=11#week2.
|
