Antievolutionists are using a new weapon in their fight to bring the supernatural into science curriculums. The U.S. Supreme Court held eight years ago that compelling public schools to teach "creation science," a doctrine that argues that science supports special creation, was unconstitutional. But opponents of Darwinian evolution are currently pushing "intelligent design," a theistic formula that posits an unnamed intelligent force to explain the diversity of life.
Volume orders of a glossy textbook promoting this thesis, "Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins," by Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, have been shipped to public schools in more than 12 states, according to the book's copyright holder, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics in Richardson, Tex. Director Jon A. Buell says the organization has sold 19,000 copies. The text informs students that evolutionary theory is incompatible with life's complexity, which "owes its origin to a master intellect"; it fails to mention that almost all biologists conclude that evolution is the only plausible scientific explanation of life. Buell has written to supporters asking for prayers and inviting readers to become part of a "quiet army" opposing the "metaphysical naturalism" of other textbooks.
Because "Pandas" scrupulously avoids suggesting divine creation, it may elude the 1987 Supreme Court ruling, which was based on the conclusion that creation science is actually religion. The book leaves its intelligent force unnamed--"like "Hamlet" without Hamlet," as one wit describes it. Buell counters that "Pandas" is not religious, although it is "congenial to theism." Critics are, however, underwhelmed by the distinction. One reviewer, Kevin Padian of the University of California at Berkeley, wrote that the book was "fundamentalism in disguise."
Buell refuses to specify where "Pandas" is being used. But the school district of Louisville, Ohio--where creationism was taught until the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) threatened a lawsuit in 1993--has accepted a donation of between 100 and 150 copies, according to the ACLU's Raymond Vasvari.
"Pandas" seems to mark a trend. Eugenie C. Scott of the National Center for Science Education in Berkeley, Calif., which monitors creationist activity, says antievolutionary sentiment is strong in many small towns. Although there are no national data, a 1991 survey of Kansas biology teachers by J. Richard Schrock of Emporia State University found that one in four favored giving creationism and evolution equal time. Schrock also notes there was a flurry of pro-creationist pickets of schools after last November's elections.
"Antievolutionism seems to be having a resurgence," agrees Ellen Chatterton of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. She points out that groups headed by the Christian Coalition are placing supporters on school boards and state committees across the country. The representatives typically argue that children should be given the benefit of a variety of theories.
Alabama is one case in point. Under the 1987 ruling, teachers are not prevented from advocating creationist ideas. After the intervention of Alabama's governor, Fob James, and members of the Eagle Forum, a Christian organization that opposes sex education, the state board of education recently accepted a science course modified to remove obstacles to "creation science." John C. Frandsen of the Alabama Academy of Science predicts the religious right will make a "strenuous effort" in September to gain state approval for a nakedly creationist book or for "Pandas."
Similar clashes are occurring elsewhere. Voters in Plano, Tex., recently threw two pro-"Pandas" members off the school board in a bitterly contested election. In Merrimack, N.H., a local Baptist minister has promised to launch a second attempt to develop a creationist curriculum--and has packed school board meetings with supporters.
Scott notes that almost all seminary-trained rabbis and ministers from most Christian denominations accommodate evolution. Only biblical literalists are genuinely conflicted by Darwinism. Yet among the lay public the perception is widespread that natural selection is inimical to all religious belief. "The only thing we are against is bad science," Scott says. "Sooner or later we are going to have to go to court over 'Pandas.'" Given the depth of feeling on both sides, perhaps nine important justices in Washington had better start reading up on intelligent design.--Tim Beardsley
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN July 1995 Volume 273 Number 1 Page 12
Scientific American (ISSN 0036-8733), published monthly by Scientific American, Inc., 415 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017-1111. Copyright 1995 by Scientific American, Inc. All rights reserved. Except for one-time personal use, no part of any issue may be reproduced by any mechanical, photographic or electronic process, or in the form of a phonographic recording, nor may it be stored in a retrieval system, transmitted or otherwise copied for public or private use without written permission of the publisher. For information regarding back issues, reprints or permissions, E-mail SCAinquiry@aol.com.
