The evolution of creationism
The New York Times
WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2005
The latest struggle over the teaching of evolution in America's
public schools provides striking evidence that evolution is occurring
before our eyes. Every time the critics of Darwinism lose a battle over
the teaching of biology, they evolve into a new form, armed with
arguments that sound more benign, while remaining as dangerous as ever.
In 1999 the Kansas Board of Education, frustrated that the
Supreme Court had made it impossible to force creationism into the
science curriculum, took the opposite tack and eliminated all mention
of evolution from the statewide science standards.
That madness was reversed in 2001 after an appalled electorate
had rejected several of the conservative board members responsible for
the travesty.
Meanwhile, Darwin's critics around the country began pushing a
new theory - known as intelligent design - that did not mention God,
but simply argued that life is too complex to be explained by the
theory of evolution, hence there must be an intelligent designer behind
it all.
Now, the anti-evolution campaigners in Kansas, who again have a
state school board majority, have scrubbed things even cleaner. They
insist that they are not even trying to incorporate intelligent design
into state science standards - that all they want is a critical
analysis of supposed weaknesses in the theory of evolution. That may be
less innocuous than it seems. Although the chief critics say they do
not seek to require the teaching of intelligent design, they add the
qualifier "at this point in time."
Once their foot is in the door, the way will be open.
The state science standards in Kansas are up for revision this
year, and a committee of scientists and educators has proposed
standards that enshrine evolution as a central concept of modern
biology. The ruckus comes about because a committee minority, led by
intelligent-design proponents, has issued its own proposals calling for
more emphasis on the limitations of evolution theory and the evidence
supposedly contradicting it.
The minority even seeks to change the definition of science in a
way that appears to leave room for supernatural explanations of the
origin and evolution of life, not just natural explanations, the usual
domain of science. All this is wildly inappropriate for a public school
curriculum.
The Kansas board, which held one-sided hearings this month that
were boycotted by mainstream scientists on the grounds that the outcome
was preordained, is expected to vote on the standards this summer. One
can only hope that the members will come to their senses first.
http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2005/05/17/opinion/edcreation.php
Copyright © 2005 The International Herald Tribune |
www.iht.com