by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright August 10, 2005
All Rights Reserved.

andering to the religious right, President George W. Bush threw his two cents into the unending debate between science and religion, namely whether “intelligent design” should be taught in public schools. Bush believes that public school students should be given a choice between Darwin's theory of evolution and quasi-creationism, holding that a supreme being created the universe and humankind. Creationism and “intelligent design” attempt, once and for all, to establish a legitimate alternative to evolution. “Both sides ought to be properly taught” in public schools, insisted Bush, once again injecting his Christian fundamentalism into the public forum. It's the same convoluted logic giving him license to veto federal money for new stem cell research. With the war raging in Iraq, debating the merits of “intelligent design” doesn't make the best use of the president's time.

      Religious conservatives have long preached contempt for Darwin, rejecting some of the most methodically developed scientific thought ever recorded. When Darwin published “The Origin of the Species and Descent of Man” in 1859, it was considered blasphemy. After all, Italian astronomer Galileo died under house arrest Jan. 8, 1642 for insisting that the earth revolved about the sun. Now Bush wants to lend credibility to “intelligent design,” teaching it along side Darwin's evolutionary biology in the public schools. Before a “theory” enters a scientific textbook, it must have more validity than simply, “the bible told me so.” Intelligent design can't be mentioned in the same breath as Darwin's evolutionary biology, a scientific attempt to explain the origin of humankind. Intelligent design and its close cousin “creationism” hold that the Bible's book of Genesis speaks the gospel.

      Scientists, and for that matter impressionable youth, can't substitute the bible for empirical truth. Whether or not Darwin's theory of evolution accounts for the origins of human life doesn't give religion access to scientific textbooks, simply because Darwin can't offer absolute proof. Darwin's theories may be deeply flawed but they are nonetheless scientific theories based on empirical evidence and the scientific method, not mindless regurgitation from religious scripture. There's plenty of opportunity for public school children to get brainwashed in religious schools, where there's no scientific test by which to measure the truth—only articles of faith. “I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,” said Bush, unable to distinguish the basic difference between a scientific and religious education, calling for clear distinctions and rigorous standards of proof.

      Preaching “intelligent design” involves religious dogma that has no basis in empirical evidence or scientific method. Unlike organized religion, public schools have a solemn obligation to verify ideas based not on faith but on empirical evidence. Telling someone something is so can't be based purely on religious dogma but on methodically developed theories supported by real-life facts. “What the president's remarks do is heighten public interest in the issue,” said John H. Calvert, managing director of the Intelligent Design Network, a Kansas-based advocacy group. But what Bush public remarks really do is lend unwarranted credibility to an idea that has no factual basis. Educators in Kansas may wish to preach “intelligent design” but they're not at liberty to take cues from the president to adopt national educational standards that go into textbooks.

      Any fool can preach ignorant views but can they back up arguments with verifiable facts? At least Darwin had observations and scientific method before concocting his theory of evolution. Scientific textbooks can't give equal weight to ideas that can't be supported by objective research. Teaching “intelligent design” or creationism in Sunday school offers the kind of balance that rounds out a good education. It's not a good public policy to teach ideas that can't be supported by empirical evidence. Myths, fantasies and false beliefs have their place, just not in scientific textbooks. Even the Founding Fathers knew that keeping religion out of government was a good thing. Bush crosses the line twice, insisting that embryonic stem cell research violates his Christian principles and now suggesting scientific textbooks teach “intelligent design” for balance and fairness.

      Many crazy ideas don't make their way into scientific textbooks or, for that matter, into the classroom. “The question was presented to him as a fairness issue,” said Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, an Oakland, Calif., non-profit group, indicating that 28 states and communities have initiatives to counter teaching Darwin in the public schools. Bush's “No Child Left Behind” education initiative demands objective measurements for both students and teachers. Promoting “intelligent design” abandons all scientific tests and asks students and teachers to accept the bible as categorical proof. Before any curriculum is introduced into the public schools, it must pass the test of objectivity. If “intelligent design” proponents really wish to see their ideas taught in public schools, they must offer more than faith or the bible as proof of validity. Public schools aren't the place to push farfetched theories or legitimize wild speculation.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.