US parents begin legal action to stop children learning intelligent design in schools

[krsna]

US parents begin legal action to stop children learning

 

intelligent design in schools

 

Sunday, 2 October , 2005

Reporter: Michael Rowland

 

 

Its critics deride it as creationism in a cheap tuxedo, but the concept of intelligent design is edging its way into American classrooms.

 

This is a theory that living beings are so complex that they didn't simply evolve, and that some form of higher intelligence must have had a crucial role.

 

With an increasing number of school boards now endorsing intelligent design as an alternative to evolution, some parents in Pennsylvania have decided to take a stand.

 

Last week they began legal action in a bid to stop their children being taught intelligent design, citing the constitutional ban on the teaching of religion in government schools.

 

As our Washington Correspondent Michael Rowland reports, the case could have enormous ramifications for the evolution versus creationism debate in the United States.

 

MICHAEL ROWLAND: Even though Beth Eveland's daughter is years away from her first high school biology class, she the Pennsylvania parent was horrified when the Dover Area School Board decided last year to require biology teachers to read a prepared statement offering intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.

 

BETH EVELAND: I really felt that this was bringing religion into the science classroom, and it didn’t belong there.

 

MICHAEL ROWLAND: Beth Evelend was so concerned that she went straight to her lawyer. Ten other parents followed suit, and this week a Federal Court judge in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania began hearing their case as to why the school board has overstepped the boundary between church and state.

 

Their legal team has recounted the debate within the school board at the time.

 

One board member is alleged to have declared the school's textbooks were laced with Darwinism.

 

Vic Walczak of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is supporting the parents, claims the same board member had much more to say.

 

VIC WALCZAK: He also said 2,000 years ago someone died on a cross, can’t someone take a stand for him? And in light of these statements, it's really difficult to see how the school board can steadfastly maintain that this has nothing to do with promoting religion.

 

 

MICHAEL ROWLAND: The statement the Pennsylvania school's biology teachers were to have read said, and I quote:

 

“The state standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution. Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not fact. Gaps in theory exist for which there is no evidence. Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's views.”

 

Richard Thompson, the lawyer representing the school board, says intelligent design is a theory that has enormous credibility.

 

RICHARD THOMPSON: The theory of intelligent design does not necessarily refer to God, although some people would obviously make that conclusion. What the theory of intelligent design says is looking at the complex nature it could not have happened by random chance, it could not have happened by Darwin's theory of natural selection. It was designed, but it does not go to the characteristics of the designer – for all we know it is some molecule, some agent that we have not yet discovered. Because it's not philosophy, it's not religion, it's biology, it's science. They always want to say that, they want to relegate it to something other than science, but what this is is a controversy surrounding the biological evolution, and this is why it should be in the science class. This is why we have scientists that are going to be expert witnesses in this case – not theologians, at least not from our side.

 

MICHAEL ROWLAND: Critics argue that the science classroom is the last place intelligent design belongs.

 

Nicholas Matske is from the National Centre of Science Education.

 

NICHOLAS MATSKE: Intelligent design grew out of the creation science movement in the '80s, and the creation science movement was concerned that evolution undermined God, and thereby undermined morality and societal values.

 

And while they've changed the name from creation science to intelligent design, they've kept that fundamental concern, there's this worry that evolution disproves God, and that this leads to societal chaos. And it's a very common view among many religious people in the country.

 

However, historical experience and the experience of many scientists shows that that's not really the case – that it's possible to accept evolution based on the scientific evidence and also to hold your religious views with no necessary conflict. So the idea that there is a conflict, and the idea that you have to have, you have to believe in special creationism, the idea that God proofs organisms into existence, that's something that, it's a very specific religious view, and that's the view that intelligent design is defending.

 

MICHAEL ROWLAND: Both sides know the court case – the first big legal showdown between evolution and creationism since the famous Scopes monkey trial 80 years ago –could have sweeping ramifications.

 

Dozens of other school boards across the US have also endorsed the teaching of intelligent design, and this number could swell if the Pennsylvania Board triumphs.

 

Last year an opinion poll found that two thirds of Americans want creationism taught alongside evolution in state schools.

 

Even US President George W. Bush believes schools should present both options when teaching the origin of life.

 

In a country where the religious right is in the ascendancy, the 11 Pennsylvania parents could be forgiven for thinking the odds are very much against them.

 

In Washington, this is Michael Rowland for Correspondents Report.