Ethics & Public Policy Essays by Harry T. Cook May 9, 2008 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To read "Indefatigable," this weekend's essay, scroll down a bit. Proponents of teaching the biblical notion of creation in place of or in competition with real science are pressing their case with ever greater zeal, now lobbying legislatures to pass what are called "academic freedom" bills. This is not encouraging. To post a comment, go to http://www.harrytcook.com and click on "sign my guestbook." To converse with me directly, just reply to this e-mail. Harry T. Cook __________________________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Indefatigable By Harry T. Cook The Bible story about the exorcised demon going forth to find seven others more evil than itself, only to return to the host to make his last state worse than the first, sprang immediately to my mind upon learning that enemies of evolution are back in full armor spoiling for yet another fight. For almost 30 years, the proponents first of "creationism" and then of its barely sanitized version known as "intelligent design" have been grinding away on the legislative and judicial processes in attempts to enshrine Genesis in public school science curricula. They were swatted down in an Arkansas federal court in 1981 when the American Civil Liberties Union won its suit against the legislature for mandating the teaching of creationism in the state's public school science classrooms. I covered that two-week trial for the Detroit Free Press in the course of which I met Stephen Jay Gould, the noted Harvard paleontologist who was a witness for the plaintiff. Judge William Overton ran a very tight ship over those two weeks in his courtroom, quashing evangelical bombast together with too-clever-by-half legal tactics. The outcome was a learned ruling that came down firmly on the side of those who believe the First Amendment means what it says about the fundamental illegality of establishing religion in any form, including creationism. "Swatted down" is the right phrase. The thing got wings again with the ramping up of what is known as "The Discovery Institute," whose pseudo-scientists work overtime on the pseudo-scientific experiments to produce the pseudo-science of "intelligent design." Their proposal amounts to an insistence that a higher and, no doubt, divine power carefully formed every hair on every head and marks the fall of every sparrow. Having pretty much lost the battle thus far, creationism/intelligent design zealots have taken a new tack, and it is expressed in a depressingly perfect way by one Doug Cowan who teaches high school biology somewhere in Florida. Cowan's idea is to teach both evolutionary biology and intelligent design in a way that allows the students to make up their own minds. Try teaching history that way or, say, surgery, where facts are pretty much facts. George Washington was, indeed, the first President of the United States, and veins and arteries discharge blood when incised. But Cowan persists. He wants the Florida legislature to pass what is called an "academic freedom" act that would allow him to present both evolution and intelligent design side by side for his students. "This is America," Cowan said, meaning, I guess, that Americans are entitled to be rubes and to teach their children to be rubes. The "academic freedom" thing is spreading now to other states, including Missouri, Louisiana and Michigan. The argument is this: Evolution is only a theory. There are other theories. It is only fair that all theories be taught and let the kids decide for themselves which one they believe. Among the myriad troubles with that notion is that a "theory" in the world of science is not equivalent to a revelation mediated through sacred text or religious hierarchy. "Theory" for scientists is what, after the exhaustive sifting of data and the testing of a hypothesis or hypotheses, turns out to be the soundest and most reasonable explanation for whatever phenomenon is under consideration. Even then, scientists continue to test the theory against new and better understood data. Charles Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection has remained paramount among biological scientists for 150 years because it is the best available explanation for the natural adaptation of life forms to their environments for the sake of survival. Writ larger and in more complex terms, the theory helps us understand the eventual emergence of Homo sapiens. That is the stopper for proponents of creationism and intelligent design. The massive truth inherent in Darwin's epoch-making observations and analysis does not match up very well with Genesis. Moreover, Darwin's theory, upon which all modern biological science is founded, also omits mention of an invisible divine hand. There's a good reason for that. No such "hand" is anywhere visible or traceable in the evolution of life. Not that one may not have existed or acted in precisely the way the pseudo-science religionists bravely believe. Such considerations, though, are beyond the scope of scientific research. Meanwhile, intelligent design by whatever name cannot be given equal status with evolutionary biology in the classrooms of a public school - not only because the former is essentially a piece of sectarian theology (think First Amendment), but because American students are already at a demonstrable disadvantage among their peers worldwide in science education. It is a vicious religion that would deliberately try to worsen that disadvantage. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ © Copyright 2008, Harry T. Cook. All rights reserved. This article may not be used or reproduced without proper credit.
top of page