Schools lose faith in evolution, Nov 18, 2004

The public statement on the Dover Area School District Web site is both ambiguous and defensive. The district "is in the process of forming a fair and balanced science curriculum. We are not teaching religion," it says. More information will be issued shortly.

This is what happens when a small south-central Pennsylvania community defies scientific tradition to become what appears to be the only district in the nation to mandate the teaching of "intelligent design" alongside evolution in high school biology.

Dover may be the first, but alas, others are trying to join this misguided movement to dislodge evolution as the standard explanation for the origin of species.

A judge in Georgia last week heard arguments over a school district's attempt to slap a warning label on a biology text, to let students know that the theory of evolution is but one theory among many. A town in rural Wisconsin has also called for "other theories" to be taught, without specifying what they are. Pennsylvania's very own Republican Sen. Rick Santorum nearly succeeded in persuading Congress to write such language into the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001. And the State of Kansas tried to eliminate evolution questions from state tests, until that school board decision was overturned.

Proponents of intelligent design (ID) believe that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by an unspecified higher power, a supernatural, omnipresent Designer. They drape their argument with scientific language and calls for critical thinking, without ever publicly mentioning God or the Bible, and seek to distance themselves from creationists who take the Genesis story literally. (At least some of it.)

It's an appealing message, driven by the innate human need to divine a purpose and meaning in life, and to believe that the natural world is governed by a "guided process," in the words of ID proponents.

But ultimately, it's faith masquerading as science, and as such, it demeans both.

Implying that ID is a qualified and competitive alternative to evolution is like saying a pee-wee football team can ever take on the Philadelphia Eagles. The proof is just not there. No peer-reviewed articles, no conclusive and widely accepted experiments - just the argument that because traditional science cannot explain all of life's complexities, something or someone else must be involved.

It's a theory for a class in religion, not biology, especially if American students are to be equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a 21st-century economy...

"The problem is, science requires a specific model that can be tested. What exactly did the designer do, and when did he do it?" writes Robert T. Pennock, a professor at Michigan State University. "One may, of course, retain religious faith in a designer who transcends natural processes, but there is no way to dust for his fingerprints."

Science and religion exist in separate realms and seek to explain the world in separate ways; they need not compete with each other to be equally valid on their own terms.

The proponents of intelligent design would have us believe that evolution and natural selection inexorably lead to a world where God has no place and life has no meaning. That's absurd. Many people believe that God and evolution can coexist.

Conversely, one can live in a world of purpose and meaning without believing that a Designer, a supernatural force, is constantly required to intervene and direct the natural world and force it to respond to the unexpected.

Children do have to learn about both science and faith - but not in the same public school classroom. Let the biology teachers do their thing, and leave the faith teaching for home and clergy.

School officials in Dover, just south of Harrisburg, did not return calls yesterday to explain last month's decision to alter the biology curriculum. Already, two members of the board have resigned in protest.

Perhaps they are learning another scientific lesson: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Mistaking faith for science will not strengthen either one. They are potent and meaningful enough to do just fine on their own.

Author: Jane Eisner, jeisner@phillynews.com