Back

Experts debate Cobb’s decision
As the debate continues on whether to allow disputed views of evolution into the sc
August 28, 2002, from the Marietta Daily Journal
By Phillip Giltman

Marietta Daily Journal Staff Writer

MARIETTA — As the debate continues on whether to allow disputed views of evolution into the science classroom, experts quarreled Friday over the policy adopted by Cobb County Schools.

The school board passed a resolution on Thursday to allow for the teaching of “disputed views” in classrooms, but in a last-minute change, specifically added that the policy is not meant “to promote or require” the teaching of creationism.

Barry Lynn, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said Friday the addition to the policy meant little.

“I think the adopted policy is the same as the proposed policy,” he said. “The intention here is to allow religious criticism of scientific doctrine, and if a teacher does this in a public school, he or she would be violating the Constitution, and the school system would have to defend itself against a lawsuit.”

But another pro-evolutionist said the policy wasn’t all bad.

“There are some pluses and minuses in the new policy,” said Skip Evans, project director for the Oakland-based National Center for Science Education. “The policy needlessly singles out evolution, and people need to understand the controversy in the scientific community is only about how evolution happens, not whether it happens. And that’s a huge difference.”

Advocate for intelligent design — the maxim that life is so complicated that it must have been designed by a creator — and senior research scientist Joe Renick, based out of New Mexico, applauded the new policy, saying the Cobb County Board of Education made a step in the right direction.

“Sooner or later, intelligent design will be discussed in the science curriculum, so I think the Board acted appropriately,” he said. “If one takes an honest and unbiased look at the evidence of intelligent design in cosmology and biology, what emerges is an empirical mandate for design as a casual agent in nature.”

Evans said he is glad the Board is not trying to promote the teaching of creationism but questioned how vigilant teachers and faculty will be to assure that it is not taught in the classroom.

“At the end of the day, what matters most is what happens in the science classrooms because if creationism is taught, the Board is going to find themselves in a very expensive lawsuit,” he said.

Evans said this debate stems from a larger national effort impelled by conservative Christians to bring creationism into the schools.

“Anti-evolution is basically a conservative Christian fundamentalist movement,” he said. “It’s unfortunate that they don’t understand the teaching of evolution is not a threat to the Christian faith.”

Renick countered by saying, “If one was to accuse me of being religiously motivated, I would say, ‘yes,’ but the motivation is to remove an anti-religious bias from scientific education, not install a teaching about biblical creationism.”

The focus of the policy allows students to think critically about scientific facts and theory, which Evans entirely supports, but he said that “pseudoscience” is not the way to do that.

“Would it be teaching them to think critically by introducing astrology into an astronomy class and tell them it’s just one more theory?” he asked.

Renick said Evans’ assertion did not apply to this debate because there is no scientific evidence for astrology, but there exists an abundant amount of evidence and documentation for intelligent design.

The Seattle-based Discovery Institute, a pro-intelligent design organization, supported Thursday’s monumental decision, calling the adoption “a victory for academic freedom and good science education.”

The Marietta-based American Family Association took no position on the new policy because of its “failure to guarantee the Biblical account of creation a place at the table.”

pgiltman@mdjonline.com