Whenever I write about creationism, the level of email feedback seems to grow a bit. In fact, there’s always more interest in this than I expect. With this in mind, I thought I’d respond online to a few questions I received about the “intelligent-design” creationism lawsuit in Dover, Pa.
First, one emailer suggested that it’s silly to file a lawsuit on church-state grounds because the Dover policy isn’t about promoting religion; it’s about promoting an “alternative” to modern biology. That’s simply not true. As Chris Mooney noted, the complaint in this case notes the religious motivation behind the local policy.
…In a public meeting of the defendant Dover Area School Board on June 7, 2004, School Board member William Buckingham, Chair of the Board’s Curriculum Committee, criticized the textbook Biology because it is “laced with Darwinism,” and advocated the purchase of a biology book that includes theories of creation as part of the text. At that meeting Mr. Buckingham said that as part of the search for a new biology book, he and others were looking for one that offers balance between the biblical view of creation and Darwin’s theory of evolution. He also said there need not be any consideration for the beliefs of Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims or other competing faiths and views. “This country wasn’t founded on Muslim beliefs or evolution,” he said. “This country was founded on Christianity and our students should be taught as such.”
At a public meeting of the Dover School Board on June 14, 2004, in further discussion of the new biology book, Mr. Buckingham stated, “Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross. Can’t someone take a stand for him?” He also stated that “[n]owhere in the Constitution does it call for a separation of church and state.”
Buckingham’s agenda is a religious one — he wants to use the local public’s school’s science curriculum to advance his theological perspective. The law prohibits just that kind of government action.
Second, someone suggested that if the community of Dover wants to promote “intelligent-design” creationism, then the decision should be up to them. That’s wrong on two counts. One, it doesn’t matter if creationism is popular in the community or not; quality science and religiously-neutral public schools are not open to a popularity contest.
Besides, there’s some question as to whether the community really wanted to make this change in the first place. At the school board meeting at which the decision was made, 12 people from the community spoke about their concerns, including the local school’s 9th grade biology teacher. Only one of the 12 supported ID — and he currently homeschools his children.
Indeed, it’s worth noting that one of the school board members who rejected the creationism proposal is considering resignation because some on the board are driven by an agenda that emphasizes religion before education.
At the end of the meeting, a tearful Carol Brown read a statement before resigning from the board. She said that on more than one occasion she had been asked if she were, “born again,” referring to the Christian term for salvation.
“No one has — nor should have — the right to ask that of a fellow board member,” she read. “An individual’s religious beliefs should have no impact on his or her ability to serve as a school board director.”
Brown has since suggested she may stay on the panel, but the fact that some of her colleagues are quizzing her on her born-again status speaks to a board that may not have a secular public education at the top of its priority list.
Perhaps most importantly, even the nation’s foremost advocate of ID realizes the Dover case is a loser.
The policy on teaching evolution recently adopted by the Dover, PA School Board was called “misguided” today by Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, which advised that the policy should be withdrawn and rewritten.
“While the Dover board is to be commended for trying to teach Darwinian theory in a more open-minded manner, this is the wrong way to go about it,” said Dr. John G. West, associate director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (CSC).
The Discovery Institute realizes this will be the first lawsuit challenging ID and a defeat, which seems likely, will discourage other districts from adopting a similar curriculum. It’s actually the opposite of what the anti-biology crowd has in mind.
The question now becomes: will Dover back down and drop the policy before the case goes to court?