Science professors, students debate merits of the
study of evolution.
JOE MANGANO
Staff Writer
A landmark trial is underway in Dover, Pa., that could have a major impact on the way biology is taught in the classroom. The trial is raising more than a few eyebrows at Pepperdine.
In November, the Dover Area School District required ninth-grade biology teachers to read a four-paragraph statement that says Darwin’s theory of evolution is “not a fact” and mentions intelligent design as an alternative theory.
Adherents of intelligent design assert that life forms are too complex to support Darwin’s theory of natural selection and rather, life is the product of an unidentified intelligent agent.
The case, which was filed by 11 parents in the Dover Area School District, is believed to be the first legal test of intelligent design.
The parents say that the statement inherently promotes the biblical account of creation and violates the First Amendment, which upholds the separation of church and state.
Kenneth Miller, a professor at Brown University and witness for the plaintiffs, testified in court that the statement “tells students that science can’t be relied upon and is not the kind of profession you want to go into.”
In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that the teaching of creationism in the public classroom is in fact a violation of church and state.
Officials with the Dover District contend that its policy is not a violation of the First Amendment.
“This case is about free inquiry in education, not about a religious agenda,” said the school district’s attorney, Patrick Gillen, in his opening statement.
Recently, President Bush recently imparted his opinion, saying that he supports both sides being presented.
“I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,” Bush said.
Bush’s viewpoint on this matter appears to resonate with many Americans. According to Time magazine, 55 percent of 1,000 adults surveyed in a poll conducted in June said creationism and intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.
While the intelligent design movement gained support from the president.,it also received a minor blow from the Roman Catholic Church.
Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, once seen as a major proponent of intelligent design, recently said in a lecture in St. Stephen’s Cathedral in Vienna that Darwin’s theory of evolution is “one of the great works of intellectual history.”
“I see no problem combining a belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, under one condition — that the limits of a scientific theory are respected,” he said.
Others are adamant about not allowing the theory to be taught in public schools.
“I will fight tooth and nail to protect California’s high academic standards,” California’s Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell said in an announcement Sept. 28.
Intelligent design does not fit in the realm of science, O’Connell said.
The case in Pennsylvania is predicted to conclude in about five weeks, but the controversial debate will live on — including at Pepperdine.
“There is no coherent scientific intelligent design theory. It is the absence of a theory,” said Dr. Karen Martin, the Frank R. Seaver Chair of Natural Science and a professor of biology.
While Martin contends that scientists do not know everything, she says the scientific method has been proven to be tremendously useful in determining how the world works.
“It’s a matter of science and not science. This is not science,” Martin said.
Dr. Jay Brewster, an associate professor of biology has a hard time with policy that would make it mandatory for teachers to include intelligent design in a science curriculum.
“There is no way to apply the scientific method to intelligent design,” Brewster said. “It is not testable or reproducible. It is a statement of faith.”
Brewster agreed that creation is a miracle, and his faith has been strengthened by the “majesty of that creation.” But Brewster does not believe that explaining the complexity of a cell can prove God’s existence.
“Scientific progress will always move forward and may very well identify a valid explanation for that mystery,” he said.
Some students on campus, however, have a different opinion.
“I think they should be taught side by side,” said sophomore Kesy Yoon, a public relations and religion major. “Isn’t that what America is about? Knowing both sides.”
Both are faith-based and should be taught as such, said sophomore Ginny Hanson a psychology major.
Other students disagree. Monique Kenien, a biology sophomore, said schools should teach only evolution.
“I think evolution is the only legitimate theory,” Kenien said. “It is a fact.”
Jerry Jones, an adjunct professor of religion, said there are enough flaws in the evolution theory that intelligent design should be taught in the public classroom.
“Our nation is not a truly secular state,” he said. “We are a monotheistic nation.”
Visiting Instructor Jennifer Sandoval said intelligent design and evolution should both be taught as well. She said she feels that people do not automatically attribute intelligent design to a specific god or deity. And as far as the First Amendment is concerned, Sandoval said, “We violate separation of church and state all the time.”
Courtney Stallings, an administrative assistant for the Communication Division and adjunct professor of creative writing, offers a different view.
“I consider myself a Christian,” Stallings said. “But I also can’t discount 150 years of scientific research.
“If you want to teach intelligent design, give me valid research. And I don’t think evolution should necessarily be divorced from God’s plan. But in public schools we should really be talking about the science and leave religion out of it.”
Raymond Carr, an adjunct professor of religion, weighed in his opinion. “I agree with Karl Barth that one has to be really careful when comparing the biblical creation story to a scientific theory. The creation story witnesses to the beginning of all creations as distinct from God, and it’s in light of God’s acts.”
The biblical account of creation is in the form of a saga, Carr said.
“I think the way one approaches it should not be an either-or proposition, but rather one should be open to both God’s revelation and to scientific understanding.”
Dr. Jeffery Jasperse, an assistant professor of sports medicine, spends a class period presenting the intelligent design concept.
“One reason I do it here is because Pepperdine operates as a Christian school,” Jasperse said. “I probably wouldn’t be allowed to teach it at a UC.”
As for whether intelligent design should be taught in public classrooms, Jasperse said, “I always cheer for the underdog. From that point of view, I pull for the intelligent design people. From a rational point of view, I’m less sure intelligent design should be presented in public science classes.”
While Distinguished Professor of Biology Dr. Stephen Davis said he believes that intelligent design does not belong in the science realm, he does conclude that science and religion have a lot to contribute to each other.
We have become so advanced in science that we need a religious baseline to provide ethics, Davis said.
It is a waste of time to argue and debate old theories like evolution, Davis said. “The real question is: should we mess with human evolution now?”
11-01-2005
