The View from Here
Intelligent-design discussion shows science's importance
By Gerald Ensley
TALLAHASSEE DEMOCRAT
It can be pointless to go to a pep rally for something you already believe in. It just reinforces how much smarter you are than the other side.
But sometimes, hearing others explain why you should believe what you believe helps you understand it better - and reminds you to respect the other side.
That's what happened last week at a Florida State University forum, "The Vigil After Dover: Keeping Science and Religion Separate in Schools."
It was one of the first public discussions of a December ruling by a federal court in Dover, Pa., that it's illegal to teach "intelligent design" in public-school science classes. Intelligent design is the heir to creationism, and both are the belief that Darwinian evolution is a fiction.
The forum was not a debate. It was a discussion of science and religion by six national experts who support the federal court's ruling: an attorney, a theologian, an activist, a scientist, a philosopher and a philosopher/scientist. All were brilliantly articulate.
The event drew 400 spectators. Judging from applause and head-nodding, it's safe to say more than two-thirds of us agreed with their every word. We agreed evolution is a fundamental truth of the universe. We agreed improving science education is paramount. We agreed religion is not science and should not be taught as such.
But the night's illumination was not the underlining of our values. It was the reminder - warning? - that we must find ways to promote good science without ignoring a belief in God.
"Until we evolutionists reach out to understand what motivates people on the other side, we're going to lose," said fiery FSU philosopher Michael Ruse. "And we bloody well deserve to."
In the Dover case, 11 parents sued the School Board for requiring science teachers to read a four-paragraph statement to students that called evolution "a theory, not a fact" and urged students to learn more about "intelligent design."
In a strongly worded 139-page ruling, a conservative Republican judge, John E. Jones III, said such efforts were illegal.
"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory," Jones wrote. "Accordingly we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public-school classroom, in violation of (the U.S. Constitution)."
FSU law professor Steve Gey said a pending lawsuit in Georgia may fall in favor of ID - which will leave the score 1-1 and possibly lead to a Supreme Court ruling. On what Gey called the "most politicized Supreme Court in my lifetime," the right to teach intelligent design as science could be upheld.
A dozen states are considering allowing science teachers to teach intelligent design - or at least discuss the supposed flaws in evolution. The ID supporters insist: We're just teaching children about the controversy and letting them decide.
(One spectator Wednesday muttered: "Are they going to show the flaws in English and let children decide if they should learn the language?")
In a 2005 study, Florida was among the 15 states that received a grade of F for their teaching of scientific standards in public schools. The report especially criticized Florida's poor teaching of evolution, calling the state's efforts "superficial" and "disappointing."
The report came at a time Florida was preparing to revise its educational standards in all subjects - and Gov. Jeb Bush said he didn't think teaching evolution should be a part of the requirements. The planned revision of Florida standards has been pushed back to 2007 or beyond.
Stronger standards are needed, given the abysmal state of science understanding among U.S. citizens. Moderator Deborah Blum, a University of Wisconsin journalism professor, said polls show half of Americans cannot identify how long it takes for the earth to orbit the sun (a year), think humans lived with dinosaurs (never) and think lasers are compressed sound waves (nope, light waves).
"The whole debate of science vs. religion is a litmus test for the deep moral, social and political divides we have in this country," Ruse said. "It is more a movement of anti-nationalism, anti-modernism, anti-enlightenment."
Yet how can we bridge those divides?
Biologist Joseph Travis, dean of the FSU College of Arts and Sciences, said scientists need to become more visible in promoting the importance of science, instead of conceding the public stage to proponents of intelligent design. Travis agreed with activist Eugenie Scott that universities have to produce more and better science teachers.
"The students in classrooms today are the citizens of tomorrow," Travis said. "If we send out students who don't know it takes a year to go around the sun, we are doing something wrong."
John Haught, a genial and thoughtful Georgetown University theologian, added that seminaries must do a better job of teaching the differences between science and religion - and the ways science might even be a celebration of religion.
"A creator who could make things that make themselves (as in evolution) is more amazing than one who is just pulling the strings," Haught said.
Yet amid all the boosterism for science was the important caution not to dismiss the role of God in a nation in which nearly 90 percent of the people identify themselves as religious. Haught said those who believe in the supremacy of science must learn to understand "the hierarchy of values" that leads people to find life's meaning and goals in a belief in God.
"There is a tendency among the scientific naturalists to leave no room for God," he said.
Haught said science vs. religion need not be an either/or proposition: You can believe in evolution and believe in God.
"We need to relax and accept there can be many explanations and causes for the universe as we know it," he said. "If we allow room for all levels of explanation, we can have a rich understanding of the world."