Friday, October 14, 2005
Dennis M . Mahoney
Ask Americans whether they want "intelligent design" taught alongside evolution in public schools, and a solid majority will say yes. But despite the heavy support in recent polls for the theory of life’s development, debate over its inclusion in school curricula goes on.
John Calvert, managing director of the Kansas-based Intelligent Design Network, accuses the scientific community of keeping the concept out of schools, saying teachers are pressed to ignore views contrary to evolution.
Dissidents are portrayed as "ignoramuses, fundamentalist religious zealots," he charged.
But Eric Meikle, spokesman for the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, Calif., said facts are facts when it comes to science.
"Science as a process is not democratic," he said. "You don’t get to vote on whether the sun comes up in the east or the west. You don’t get to vote on whether the Earth goes around the sun or the sun goes around the Earth."
The intelligent-design concept holds that the evolution of life is the result of a plan that originated with some entity, and its supporters say it differs from creationism.
Creationists generally hold that God created all life. In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court banned creationism from being taught in public schools; critics of intelli- gent design say it is just another name for creationism.
Testimony is being heard in a Pennsylvania lawsuit in which some parents are trying to stop the introduction of intelligent design into science classes. The school board in Dover, Pa., last year became the first in the nation to vote to require the concept’s discussion in schools.
In Ohio, the State Board of Education approved a 10 th-grade science lesson plan in 2004 that allows for "a critical analysis of evolution" in schools. Using the plan is optional.
Do polls always rule ?
While the public likes the idea of teaching intelligent design and creationism in schools, some say poll numbers shouldn’t be the deciding factor in developing curricula.
Ron Carstens, political science professor at Ohio Dominican University, said public opinion is an important part of the American political system.
"But we ought not to empower public opinion, whether we would agree with it or not, as the only thing that determines what we’ll teach or what we’ll do in the greater world," he said.
It’s important that schools try to bring public opinion and informed scientific opinion together, Carstens said.
When developing lesson plans, teachers’ views should be considered, as should the relationship among various teaching disciplines.
"Intelligent design is really a conclusion that people come to theologically or philosophically....Butthat’s not what we mean by the science of anthropology, or any of the sciences that talk about how life may or may not have developed," he said.
"In a free society, all ideas should be considered, but all ideas should not be given power."
What the public wants sometimes can be wrong, Carstens said, noting that Nazi leader Adolf Hitler had strong popular support for his policies.
"You don’t base morality on what people want," he said. "You base morality on whether something is good or evil. And that’s a question of intellectual and logical and moral clarity."
Calvert said polls showing that people want intelligent design taught in schools indicate that parents don’t want their children brainwashed. That’s happening now, he said, and the teaching of evolution has become a doctrine "that does not allow dissent from a naturalistic perspective."
"Students should be taught evolution honestly," Calvert said. "And that means that you show both sides of the scientific controversies."
Intelligent design differs from creationism in that it is not biblically based, he said. Intelligent-design supporters say scientific data suggest that the world evolved based on some great plan, which was the work of God or something else, Calvert said.
He admits that data supporting intelligent design is "friendly to theistic religion." But he insisted intelligent design backers are not trying to "sneak religion in the back door" of schools.
"What we’re trying to do . . . is take a religious problem out of science education," Calvert said.
"And the present problem in science education is that evolution is promoted as using naturalism. And that denigrates theistic beliefs and it promotes nontheistic beliefs. And it’s not the function of the state government to do that."
Are voters well - informed ?
Meikle takes issue with poll numbers, saying that many people are unsure what intelligent design is. One Gallup Poll showed only 17 percent of respondents had a notion of what the term means.
But for most, he said, it is a religious concept.
"If you were to just ask them what does intelligent design mean, I think for most people it means God created the world, the universe, in some fashion," he said.
Backing for teaching intelligent design is directly related to Americans’ overall overwhelming belief in a supreme being, Meikle said.
"Intelligent design fits comfortably with the idea that God exists," he said. "And I think that’s a major reason . . . people are willing to be supportive of the idea."
Meikle said his organization doesn’t object to science teachers discussing with students at the start of the school year that some people don’t accept the idea of evolution.
If intelligent-design supporters want the concept taught in schools, he said, they must deal with scientists, not just school boards and lawmakers.
"The intelligent-design people have to do science first," Meikle said. "They need to convince the scientific community that there’s something there. They don’t have to necessarily convince them of everything they see, but they have to convince them that there’s some content."
Lynn Elfner, executive officer of the Ohio Academy of Science, said public opinion polls aren’t much help in the debate over intelligent design.
Polls "tell us a lot from a marketing standpoint — if you want to market a book or a newspaper. They don’t tell you much in terms of science because the majority of the public does not do science."
Paul Djupe, political science professor at Denison University, said he believes there’s not widespread support for using public opinion to determine school curricula.
Many believe that experienced teachers and administrators are the best judges of what should be taught in certain subjects, he said. Still, there are parents who feel that if children are to be taught something that squares with their religious faith and doesn’t disrupt schooling, there is no harm, Djupe said.
"But I really don’t think that most of the public is invested in this question," he said. "They really don’t have a dog in this fight."
Yet public opinion provides important input at all levels of representative government and shouldn’t be discounted, Djupe said. It can’t, however, be the only force behind decisions, he said.
"You have to have leadership at the same time," Djupe said. "But it’s a responsive leadership to some bounds that the public would set for public officials."
©2005 Columbus Ohio Dispatch
This article first appeared in the 10/14/2005 edition of the Columbus (OH) Dispatch. Online access to articles is restricted to subscribers so the article appears here for educational purposes only. Original link: Science or democracy?