A furor over science and religion in the classroom has roiled a small school district in south-central Pennsylvania, although strictly speaking, the tumult does not center on evolution or creationism.
The controversy in the Dover Area school system stems from the 3,600-student district鈥檚 recent decision to include language on 鈥渋ntelligent design鈥� in its revamped biology curriculum.
That change prompted the resignations of two school board members, and it has stirred criticism from outside organizations that say the new guideline amounts to an indirect attempt to thrust religion into the classroom.
Dover鈥檚 revised curriculum includes the statement: 鈥淪tudents will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin鈥檚 theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to intelligent design.鈥� Intelligent design is the general belief that natural phenomena in the world cannot be explained entirely through theories such as evolution, but rather are also the work of an unspecified maker or designer.
Some critics of the statement interpret the wording as a mandate to teach intelligent design. At least two organizations that have followed similar curricular debates say if that is the case, the guideline would make Dover the first district in the country with a requirement to teach that concept.
鈥榃e鈥檙e Going to Get Sued鈥�
School officials, however, responded last week to criticism by releasing a statement saying that 鈥渘o teacher will teach intelligent design, creationism, or present his/her or the board鈥檚 religious beliefs.鈥� While Pennsylvania standards require that students learn about Charles Darwin鈥檚 theory of evolution, Dover district officials said the subject of life鈥檚 origins is not taught in their district, and any discussion of that topic should be left to 鈥渋ndividual students and their families.鈥�
But two Dover school board members, husband and wife Jeff and Carol Brown, were so frustrated by the curriculum change that they resigned. Mr. Brown maintains that the language, approved by the board on Oct. 18, is 鈥渃reationism in another guise鈥� and an unconstitutional promotion of religion.
鈥淎ll it does is stop short of naming the supreme creator,鈥� Mr. Brown said. 鈥淚 told [board members] when we passed this, 鈥業 guarantee we鈥檙e going to get sued.鈥� 鈥�
Several Dover school board members and district administrators did not return calls for comment. But new board member Ronald Short, who was appointed to a seat on the panel to a term that lasts until next fall, said he was 鈥渓eaning strongly鈥� toward continuing to support the district鈥檚 policy on intelligent design. He viewed the new curriculum as an effort to teach students to think critically about science issues. 鈥淚t has absolutely nothing to do with religion,鈥� he said.
Theories, Beliefs
Debates over evolution have emerged in a number of districts recently, including an ongoing federal court case stemming from the Cobb County, Ga., district鈥檚 policy of placing a sticker on textbooks describing evolution as a 鈥渢heory, not a fact.鈥� (鈥淓volution Stickers Go on Trial in Ga.,鈥� Nov. 17, 2004.)
Jay B. Labov, a senior adviser at the National Research Council, a division of the congressionally chartered National Academies, pointed out that the scientific community defines a 鈥渢heory鈥� as an explanation that has been robustly tested and supported through several lines of evidence. Evolution meets that standard, he said, but intelligent design and creationism do not.
Mr. Labov also said that many of the supposed 鈥済aps鈥� in the theory of evolution cited by critics have in fact been explained by science and do not cast legitimate doubt on the theory.
A 1999 report by the National Academy of Sciences says that creationism and intelligent design 鈥渁re not science.鈥� Those claims, the document states, 鈥渟ubordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief.鈥�
Eugenie C. Scott, the executive director of the National Center for Science Education, an Oakland-Calif.-based organization that opposes efforts to teach creationism in science classes, agreed. 鈥淚ntelligent design is a fancy way of saying 鈥楪od did it,鈥� 鈥� Ms. Scott said. A court would deem Dover鈥檚 policy unconstitutional, she predicted, after focusing on 鈥渨ho the designer is.鈥�
Richard Thompson, the chief counsel for the Thomas More Law Center, an Ann Arbor, Mich.-based nonprofit firm that defends Christian views in religious-freedom cases, said his organization has already offered to represent the Dover district, if it is sued over the curriculum.
鈥淭eachers should be allowed to teach the gaps in evolution,鈥� Mr. Thompson said. 鈥淎s a high school student, I鈥檇 think you鈥檇 want to know there are gaps. Right now, it seems that there is a pall of orthodoxy over the school system.鈥�
