Washington Times, commentary page.
July 24, 2000

Scopes in reverse

Nancy R. Pearcey

     As Kansas wound down its week long observance of the 75th anniversary
of the Scopes Trial, a striking irony largely escaped notice: Whereas in
1925 the teaching of evolution was banned from the classroom, in 2000 the
teaching of anything but evolution is effectively banned from the
classroom. Academic freedom is just as restricted as ever â   only this
time it's the pro-evolution side doing the censoring.
     One of the most popular events this past week was a dramatic
presentation based on transcripts of the original Scopes Trial, sponsored
by pro-evolution People for the American Way (PAW). The audience was
prompted with cue cards saying, "hiss" and "hubbub," but many went beyond
the instructions, breaking in with eager cheers and applause.
     The topic clearly generates a high level of interest. And that interest
is not always what one would expect. One recent poll found that 79 percent
of all Americans want creation taught in the school, which was almost as
many people who support teaching evolution in school (83 percent) â
these results greatly surprised PAW, who commissioned the poll. What is
more, 30 percent do not want creation relegated to history or social
studies courses; they want it taught as a scientific theory.
     Critics charge this would inject religion into the science classroom.
But the idea life exhibits design is a timeless observation that has been
held by religious and non-religious alike since the time of the ancient
Stoics. Contemporary "design theory" relies on scientific evidence to
determine whether an event is caused by natural or intelligent causes â
just as a detective relies on evidence to decide whether a death was
natural or murder, or an insurance company relies on evidence to decide
whether a fire is an accident or arson.
     In explaining, for example, the origin of life, an open-minded scientist
would weigh evidence whether natural causes (chance and law) are capable
of creating the vast stores of information in the DNA code. The answer
scientists are finding is "no." Chance produces randomness, while physical
law produces simple, repetitive order (like using a macro on your computer
to print a phrase over and over). The only thing that produces complex,
non-repeating, specified order is an intelligent agent.
     That is why today qualified scientists are reaching the conclusion
that design theory makes better sense of the data. Influential new books
are coming out by scientists like molecular biologist Michael Behe
("Darwin's Black Box," The Free Press) and mathematician William Dembski
("The Design Inference," Cambridge University Press), which identify
problems with Darwinian evolution and highlight evidence for intelligent
design in the universe.
     Of course, any theory of origins will have religious implications â
but that doesn't mean it should be barred from the classroom. Darwinism
itself has religious implications (or rather, anti-religious ones), but
the theory is still taught in public schools. Darwinism and design theory
are not two different subjects; they are competing answers to the same
question: How did life arise and diversify on Earth? If one viewpoint is
taught, the other should be taught as well.
     The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has strong-armed many school
districts into banning anything but neo-Darwinian evolution, but their
scare tactics represent a misunderstanding of what the Supreme Court
actually said. Teaching a variety of scientific theories about origins
"might be validly done with the clear secular purpose of enhancing the
effectiveness of science education," the court stated in Edwards vs.
Aguillard.
     The court even asserted that academic freedom requires alternative
theories about origins to be permitted in public school science
classrooms. And under its definition of academic freedom the court
included a teacher's right to teach scientific alternatives to the
dominant Darwinian approach to biological origins. In other words, the
court has explicitly stated it is constitutional for teachers and school
boards to expose students to the scientific problems with current
Darwinian theory, as well as to any scientific alternatives.
     In fact, suppressing alternatives constitutes "viewpoint
discrimination," something the court has else where pronounced
unconstitutional.
     Those celebrating the anniversary of the Scopes Trial ought to take a
lesson from the Supreme Court and support the principle of openness in
science education. How ironic that today it is the pro-evolution groups,
like PAW, that are on the side of intolerance. The audience cheering the
academic freedom won in 1925 ought to be calling for the same freedom in
today's classroom.

Nancy R. Pearcey is a senior fellow at the Center for the Renewal of Science
and Culture at the Discovery Institute and is managing editor of the journal
Origins and Design. She is coauthor of "The Soul of Science" and of "How
Now Shall We Live?"

--------------------------
Nancy R. Pearcey
Senior Fellow
The Discovery Institute
Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture
phone: 703-492-7837
fax: 703-492-7838
www.discovery.org/crsc
www.arn.org/pearcey/nphome.htm
email: npearcey@aol.com

POWRÓT