Cobb Mulls Teaching Evolution Alternatives

Evolution may be on the way out as the only theory on the origin of life taught in Cobb County's schools.

The school board is considering a policy that would allow science teachers to introduce alternative theories on the beginnings of life, including what one board member called "scientific creationism."

All students in Cobb high schools already have biology texts that carry disclaimers saying biological evolution is theory, not fact. Now several board members say they are responding to parent and community pressure and want the district to start teaching alternative ideas in science class. The board unanimously asked its attorney Wednesday to craft a policy that keeps the district within legal bounds.

"The courts allow for multiple teachings," said board member Lindsey Tippins. "We need to put that in our policy and allow that in our classrooms." Scientific creationism, Tippins said, is the idea that life has evolved not through happenstance, but in a purposeful way. What distinguishes scientific creationism from creationism?

The possibility of religious-based ideas being introduced to students as scientific theory angers biologists, who say students need a better grounding.

"It's putting creationism and religion into the science classroom," said Ron Matson, assistant chairman of the department of biological and physical science at Kennesaw State. "They are clouding the issue as to what science is and what it is not. You cannot scientifically disprove that God did something."

The issue that has divided Americans since 1925, when John Scopes was tried in Tennessee for teaching Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, arose in Cobb this spring.

As the district prepared to upgrade its science and health texts for the first time in seven years, several dozen parents opposed to biological evolution urged the board to reject three biology texts.

The books emphasize Darwin's theory, which holds that all living things developed from earlier forms through slight variations over time and that natural selection determines which species survive.

Parents advocated the teaching of alternative theories, including "intelligent design," which holds that the variety of life on Earth results from a purposeful design, rather than random mutation, and that a higher intelligence guides the process.

The school board responded by keeping the biology textbooks but approving an insert that says: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

The response only partly satisfied some parents, who wanted at a minimum what the board is now considering -- allowing teachers to explore controversies surrounding evolution.

Public schools are prohibited from teaching creationism as a theory on the origin of man, said board attorney Glenn Brock, because it is based in religious belief.

But he and some Cobb board members say alternative theories can be introduced in class, and the debate covered as long as a particular religious position is not advanced.

The district's policy should reflect community standards, said board Chairman Curt Johnston. And in the past several months, he's heard more from the anti-evolution side.

"The policy we develop should be a reflection of the community standards, and what people feel is fair and reasonable in teaching theories," Johnston said. "The people on the creation side of the debate have been getting better at making their case in a scientific fashion."

Board member Teresa Plenge agreed. "There is validity in creation science theory as well. Both should be presented."

Board member Laura Searcy said the district needs to determine if the alternative theories are science-based.

"Science ought to be taught in school," she said. "Religion ought to be taught at home. The conflict comes in what is valid science."

OK, then drop that part. It doesn't change the position I suggest.

By the way, I don't believe the paragraph I suggested would allow the teaching of "creation science" I personally believe that G-d created the universe and that the seeming gaps between the scientific record and the Biblical record are due to man's inability to properly interpret one, or the other, or both. However, I don't think you can teach special creation as science. That is because you can't use hypothesis, experiment, observe, revise to clarify the details. G-d did it once upon a time and that's all we have. AFAIK, all "creation science" ever does is try to refute evolutionary origins. But what good does that do, removing one theory is not the same as advancing another unless you have categorically shown that only two possibilities exist.

Shalom.

>>>"Intelligent Design" is not associated with any religion or doctrine. <<<

Not overtly, no. But if you poll IDers as to who the designer was/is, I'll bet you the vast majority would pick the Judeo-Christian God. IIRC, such a poll was taken recently in Ohio -- whose school board was considering requiring ID instruction in the schools -- and something like 80 percent said they thought God was the designer. In theory, of course, it could be aliens or time travelers or what have you; but in the U.S. (and I haven't seen that ID has much of a following outside of America) most IDers are putting their money on the Almighty.

I wasn't sure the Supremes had addressed the point either; hence my reference to the creationism cases of "the higher courts". And maybe I'm remembering a line from the Arkansas case (i.e., a district court case rather than a higher court case), but I seem to recall that at least some courts have held that the negative side of creationism --criticism of evolution, rather than just advocacy of Biblical creationism -- can lead to Establishment Clause issues for the reasons I mentioned in my original post.

Thank you for your reply!

I do not doubt that Christians and Jews would promote the "Intelligent Design" model. But that has no more to do with science than the fact that atheists and agnostics promote the "Evolution" model.

The bottom line IMHO is that "Intelligent Design" is neutral to religion and thus would not run afoul of the establishment clause.

>>>The bottom line IMHO is that "Intelligent Design" is neutral to religion and thus would not run afoul of the establishment clause<<<

I agree that ID is facially neutral as to religion. However, if the Cobb County School Board requires that it be taught in science class because ID happens to coincide with the religious beliefs of the Board (and certain vocal constituents) rather than because of its scientific merit alone, I believe that doing so would violate the Establishment Clause. And I believe that this is the real reason the Board is thinking about requiring the teaching of ID.

Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that the Board members want to mandate teaching ID because they believe it lends scientific support to the creation account in Genesis or to the notion that the JudeoChristian God created all life, do you believe that doing so would violate the Establishment Clause?

Thanks for sharing your views!

If it were the Board's stated intent to present "Intelligent Design" along with "Evolution" in order to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ, they would be in violation of the establishment clause - according to the previous Supreme Court rulings.

If they do not state an intention, we cannot read their minds and thus cannot infer the intent - and there would be no conflict with the establishment clause.

My two cents...

Actually, they should add the language, along with credits, of course:

"evolution is only a theory, blah, blah..."

(footnote) this paragraph is added by order of public law xx-yy, adopted by the General Assembly on Aug...

Voting for: Del Able (r), Del Baker (d)....

Signed by Governor...

I believe Cobb County has an ever-increasing private school enrollment. Perhaps the county is doing this to appease parents who don't believe in Darwin's theory and would prefer that it not be taught as fact.

you said If they do not state an intention, we cannot read their minds and thus cannot infer the intent - and there would be no conflict with the establishment clause. My two cents...
Would you extend this gracious exception to others whose intents are never spoken, but whose desire is clearly evident?

An example: Homsexuality

Thank you for your post!

Would you extend this gracious exception to others whose intents are never spoken, but whose desire is clearly evident? An example: Homsexuality

I believe that is the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military with regard to homosexuality. The catch is your phrase "clearly evident" which would fail on the "don't tell" test.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.