Religion in America
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Proceedings of the 5th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Arts and Humanities. Honolulu, HI: 2007: pp. 4797-4834. ISSN 1541-5899.
RELIGION IN AMERICA: THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN CONTROVERSY
Douglas W. Shrader1 Distinguished Teaching Professor & Chair of Philosophy SUNY Oneonta Oneonta, NY
Abstract: In theory, the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America sets forth a principle widely known as “separation of church and state.” In practice, America is a dynamic patchwork of religious and political values, attitudes, and activities. In some cases, the religious and political components of our lives rest side by side without seriously challenging one another – or the principle of separation. Other cases are fraught with misunderstanding, conflict, and confusion. As a preliminary step toward clarifying misunderstandings and resolving conflicts, this paper examines several components of the current controversy concerning intelligent design. Specifically, I explore: (i) a frequently befuddling and puzzling fabric of public opinion, (ii) conceptual difficulties inherent in the use of concepts like creationism, evolution, and intelligent design, (iii) the rich philosophical and intellectual history underpinning the concept of intelligent design, including Charles Darwin’s lifelong fascination with the concept, and (iv) pivotal court cases concerning the teaching of creation science (Edwards v. Aguillard: June 1987) and intelligent design (Kitzmiller v. Dover: December 2005). But I begin as all good papers should begin: with a story.
A Timely Topic ast fall a colleague from Earth Sciences invited me to speak to an Elderhostel group about the concept of Intelligent Design. His inspiration, he confided, Loriginated from a Geology conference where professors had been given ten minutes to state their views on the subject. The energy during that session, based on the impact it made on my colleague, must have been incredible. He found himself not only wanting to know more about Intelligent Design, but wondering what scholars in other fields – especially at his home institution – thought about the topic. He pitched his idea to the Elderhostel who, much to his delight, demonstrated considerable interest. In addition to thirty-three registered participants, our sessions were “crashed” by approximately a dozen undergraduate students who had somehow gotten wind of the event. When all was
1 ©November, 2006 by Douglas W. Shrader. This paper has been accepted for presentation at the Fifth Annual Hawaii International Conference on Arts and Humanities, January 2007. My analysis is based in part on research conducted while I was a visiting scholar at the East-West Center in Honolulu, during a sabbatical from SUNY Oneonta (Spring 2006). Participation in the conference is supported in part by a Faculty Development Award. Sincere appreciation is extended to: (i) SUNY Oneonta, especially President Alan B. Donovan, Provost F. Daniel Larkin, and Dean Michael Merilan, and (ii) the East-West Center, especially Elizabeth Buck, Peter Hershok, and Grant Otoshi.
- 1 - Religion in America said and done, what would have been a low profile discussion between professors and senior citizens wound up as a front page story in the college newspaper.
Professor Fleisher selected a provocative title for the session – Stirring the Pot – but repeatedly stressed that our goal was to explore rather than debate. A total of six presenters, divided evenly between two sessions on consecutive Mondays, were expected to adhere to the same ten-minute limit that had governed exchange during the Geology conference. Five of the six presenters were professors, three of whom hold the title of Distinguished Teaching Professor. A Baptist minister rounded out the group but, unfortunately, a Jewish rabbi who had been invited to provide additional religious perspective was unable to participate.2
Despite (or maybe even because of) the Draconian time constraint placed on each speaker, the Elderhostel sessions provided an intriguing cross-section of belief concerning Intelligent Design. Yet in a very real sense, as inspired and insightful as the content of our presentations may have been, the most interesting thing about the exchange is the simple fact that it took place at all. In terms of the title of this paper, we may ask what it says about religion in America when both senior citizens and college students are drawn to an intellectual discussion of Intelligent Design.
Public Opinion Recent surveys conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life3 demonstrate that Americans exhibit a generally positive attitude toward science, but retain a decidedly
2 Our forum was sponsored by the Center for Continuing Adult Learning and hosted by the State University of New York at Oneonta. My fellow presenters included Paul Bischoff (Associate Professor of Science Education), Gary Bonebrake (Pastor of the Main Street Baptist Church in Oneonta, NY), P. Jay Fleisher (Distinguished Teaching Professor of Earth Sciences), Nigel Mann (Assistant Professor of Biology), and John Relethford (Distinguished Teaching Professor of Anthropology). I am grateful to Jay Fleisher for inviting me to participate in this invigorating exchange. Each participant provided a clear, incisive presentation that served to remind me of things I might otherwise have forgotten, to inform me of things I did not otherwise know, and to spur my thoughts in directions they might not otherwise have taken. To each, I owe a heartfelt “thank you.” 3 According to their website (
- 2 - Douglas W. Shrader religious conviction about the origins of life and remain deeply distrustful of the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. According to a report issued August 30, 2005:
Most Americans believe that God was responsible for the creation of life on earth but divide on the question of whether and how life has changed since the creation. Overall, 78% say God created life on earth, while 5% think a universal spirit or higher power was responsible for the creation.
Despite this broad agreement regarding the origins of life, the public is deeply divided on precisely how life developed. A plurality of Americans (48%) say that humans and other living things have evolved over time, but nearly as many (42%) say that humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. …
There is further division among those who agree that life has evolved over time. Of those who say that living things have evolved over time, roughly half (26% of the public overall) accept the Darwinian account of evolution, saying that evolution has occurred through natural processes such as natural selection. But nearly four-in-ten of those who believe in evolution (18% of the public as a whole) say that evolution was guided by a supreme being for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today, a view that is consistent with some aspects of what has been called “intelligent design.”4
Beliefs about the Origins of Life Beliefs about Evolution
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0 2005 2005
God Created Life on Earth Life Evolved Over Time A Universal Spirit Created Life on Earth Life Always Existed in the Present Form A follow-up survey, reported a year later, provides confirmation of the overall statistical portrait, important context and detail that were not addressed in the 2005 study, and even a few hints concerning the direction in which opinion is shifting:
4 “Public Divided on Origins of Life: Religion a Strength and Weakness for Both Parties.”
- 3 - Religion in America
Solid majorities in every major religious group say that scientific advances help rather than harm mankind. The view that science is helping mankind varies from 63% among mainline Protestants to 72% among white Catholics.
But the issue of evolution and the origins of life remains highly divisive. Specifically, the views of white evangelical Protestants are very different from those of other groups, with a majority (65%) rejecting the notion that humans and other living things have evolved over time, and espousing the view that life has existed in its present form since the beginning of time. Just 28% of evangelicals believe in evolution, and only 6% think evolution occurred through natural selection.
Among seculars and most other religious groups, majorities believe in evolution: this includes 59% of white Catholics, 62% of white mainline Protestants and 83% of seculars.5
For comparison, the 2005 study reported Beliefs of White Evangelicals that 70% of white evangelicals believe that 80 life has always existed in its present form (vs. 65% in 2006) while 20% believe in 60 some form of evolution (vs. 28% a year later). The percentage of white evan-gelicals 40 who accept evolution by means of natural selection remained unchanged at 6%. 20 The percentages of respondents who accept 0 some form of evolution were fairly 2005 2006 consistent between the two studies for two Life has always existed in its present form profile groups: white Catholics (61% in Life has evolved in some way 2005 vs. 59% in 2006) and white Life has evolved by natural selection mainstream Protestants (60% in 2005 vs. 62% in 2006). However the corresponding percentage for secular respondents in 2006 (83%) was notably higher than in 2005 (71%).
Interestingly, only 25% of African American Protestants in 2005 accepted the idea that species evolve over time, with about half (13% overall) believing in natural selection and about half (12%) opting for the idea that evolution is guided by a supreme being.6
5 “Many Americans Uneasy with Mix of Religion and Politics.”
- 4 - Douglas W. Shrader
As had been the case in 2005, the 2006 study found that: Percentages of Americans who accept some form of Evolution …mainline Protestants and Catholics who 90 believe in evolution are themselves 80 divided over the question of whether 70 evolution occurred through natural 60 selection or was guided by a supreme 50 being for the purpose of creating human 40 life in its present form. Overall, 31% of 30 mainline Protestants believe in natural 20 selection, while 26% believe a supreme 10 0 being guided the process. Among 2005 2006 Catholics, 25% subscribe to the idea of Secular Respondents natural selection and 31% think evolution White Catholics was divinely guided. Only among White Mainstream Protestants seculars does a majority accept natural White Evangelicals selection: 69% of respondents with no African Americans (2005 only) religious affiliation believe that life evolved through natural selection.7
In 2005, 24% of mainline Protestants reported a belief that evolution occurred under divine guidance (vs. 26% in 2006), but the percentage who accept a process of natural selection was unchanged from one year to the next (31%). For Catholics, figures shifted slightly more, but not enough to constitute a trend or challenge the reliability of the overall statistical portrait: in 2005, 28% accepted natural selection (vs. 25% in 2006) while an identical 28% opted for guided evolution (vs. 31% in 2006).
As noted above, the percentage of secular respondents who expressed a commitment to evolution was markedly higher in 2006 than it was in 2005 (rising from 71% to 83%). A parallel increase shows up in the data concerning natural selection: whereas a bare majority of secular respondents in the 2005 survey reported a belief in natural selection (56%), over two-thirds (69%) opted for natural selection in the 2006 survey. Despite the apparent upswing in evolutionary commitments, both increases may depend more on sampling technique and size than they do on changing societal attitudes. Less than one- eighth (234 of 2000) of the 2005 respondents described their religious orientation as “secular.”8
7 Ibid. 8 According to the 2006 survey, America is not nearly as secular as our schools, movies, newspapers, television, and shopping malls would lead an unbiased observer to suppose. Two-thirds of Americans answer “yes” when asked, “Is the U.S. a Christian nation?” (67% yes; 28% no, and 5% don’t know). Even citizens who describe their own beliefs as secular tend to agree: nearly half (48%) respond affirmatively to the question. Whether America really is a Christian nation is of course a more difficult and controversial question, but one thing is clear from the polls: most Americans (secular and religious alike) are inclined to think that it is. Moreover, the vast majority of the American public regards the Bible as the word of God:
- 5 - Religion in America
Mechanism of Evolution (2005) Mechanism of Evolution (2006)
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0 Natural Selection Divine Guidance Natural Selection Divine Guidance
Secular Respondents Secular Respondents White Catholics White Catholics White Mainstream Protestants White Mainstream Protestants White Evangelicals White Evangelicals African Americans The 2006 report continues:
The rejection of evolution is not entirely a result of a lack of awareness of the scientific consensus on the subject. More people believe that scientists agree on evolution (62%) than accept the idea themselves (51%), and this is true even among white evangelical Protestants (43% think scientists agree on evolution but only 28% believe in evolution). Nor is the rejection of evolution a result of political or ideological beliefs. While Republicans and conservatives are more apt than Democrats or liberals to deny that evolution occurs, this correlation is mostly a result of the large number of evangelicals with creationist views in the Republican Party and among conservatives.9
On the matter of scientific consensus, overall figures varied a little more than would normally be expected in a single year. In 2005, only 54% believed that scientists agree on evolution (vs. 62% in 2006). Among secular respondents, the increase was even more dramatic (82% answering that scientists agree about evolution in 2006 vs. 66% in 2005). In an intriguing twist, figures for white evangelical Protestants remained more constant
Most Americans (78%) continue to view the Bible as the word of God, though there is disagreement over whether everything in the Bible is literally true; 35% say it is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, while 43% say the Bible is the word of God, but not everything in it should be taken literally. These numbers have remained largely unchanged since Pew began asking the question in 1996. The view that the Bible is literally true is more widely held among women than men (39% vs. 31%) and is more prevalent among blacks compared to whites (58% vs. 31%). There is also a geographic component to opinions on this question. Nearly half of those in the South (48%) say the Bible is literally true, compared with much smaller percentages in the Midwest (34%), West (24%), and East (24%). (Ibid.) 9 Ibid.
- 6 - Douglas W. Shrader concerning scientific consensus than they did their own beliefs: in 2005, 42% acknowledged that scientists agree about evolution (vs. 43% in 2006) but only 20% accepted it themselves (vs. 28% in 2006).10
After summarizing the differences that What should be taught in school? divide Americans in their beliefs (2005 data - by belief) concerning evolution, the 2005 study (though unfortunately not the 2006 one) 80 provided a tantalizing glimpse of 60 American opinion concerning the public school science curriculum: 40
Overall, about half the public (48%) 20 says that humans and other living things have evolved over time, while 0 42% say that living things have Teach Creationism Teach Both existed in their present form since the Only Creationism & beginning of time. Fully 70% of white Evolution evangelical Protestants say that life has existed in its present form since Believe in Creationism the beginning of time; fewer than half Believe in some form of Evolution as many white mainline Protestants Believe in Guided Evolution (32%) and white Catho-lics (31%) Believe in Natural Selection agree.
Despite these fundamental differences, most Americans (64%) say they are open to the idea of teaching creationism along with evolution in the public schools, and a substantial minority (38%) favors replacing evolution with creationism in public school curricula. While much of this support comes from religious conservatives, these ideas – particularly the idea of teaching both perspectives – have a broader appeal. Even many who are politically liberal and who believe in evolution favor expanding the scope of public school education to include teaching creationism. But an analysis of the poll also reveals that there are considerable inconsistencies between people’s beliefs and what they want taught in the schools, suggesting some confusion about the meaning of terms such as “creationism” and “evolution.”11 While it may not come as a surprise to learn that Americans who believe in creationism would like to have creationism as well as evolution taught in the public schools (65% pro vs. 26% con), two companion statistics are especially worthy of note. First, their responses to this question were virtually identical to the responses of those who hold opposite views concerning the development of life: Americans who believe in evolution also overwhelmingly favor teaching creationism as well as evolution (66% pro vs. 27%
10 By comparison, only 59% of Americans in the 2006 survey believe that scientists agree about global warming (2 points less than evolution). The difference is most marked, not among the religious groups, but among the secular respondents (72% re global warming vs. 82% re evolution). 11 “Public Divided on Origins of Life: Religion a Strength and Weakness for Both Parties.” Op. cit.
- 7 - Religion in America con). In fact, even 62% of those who believe in natural selection favor teaching both views (with only 33% in opposition). Second, people who are committed to creationism were more inclined to favor an educational system that taught both creationism and evolution (65% pro vs. 26% con) than one that only taught creationism (56% pro vs. 32% con).
The question is, however, one in which What should be taught in school? race makes a subtle difference. 48% of (2005 data - by race) African American respondents and 44% of 80 Hispanic ones favor teaching crea-tionism instead of evolution (vs. 37% of White respondents). Education also makes a 60 difference: only 25% of respond-ents with college degrees support teach-ing 40 creationism instead of evolution (vs. 49% of those who did not finish high school). 20 Even so, a full two-thirds (66%) of college graduates favor teaching creationism as well as evolution (vs. 51% of those who 0 Teach Creationism Teach Both did not finish high school). Age is not as Only Creationism & strong a variable as one might initially Evolution think: 39% of respondents under 30, 36% Total White of those between 30 and 65, and 40% of African American Hispanic those over 65 favor teaching creationism instead of evolution.
Next, the 2005 survey addresses the question of “Who should decide what is taught?”
Large majorities of Americans believe that parents, scientists and science teachers and school boards should all have a say in how evolution is taught in public schools, and these majorities are found among all religious groups and people on both sides of the question of how life developed on earth. But there are deep divisions in the public about who should have the primary say on how evolution is handled. Overall, a plurality of the public (41%) says parents should have the primary say, compared with 28% for scientists and science teachers and 21% for school boards.
A majority (54%) of those who accept creationist accounts support giving parents the primary say on how evolution is taught. Among those who accept the theory of natural selection, however, nearly half (47%) support giving scientists and science teachers the primary role in how evolution is handled in public schools. Evangelical Protestants are most in favor of parents having the primary say on this issue (59%), while seculars are most supportive of trusting scientists and science teachers with these decisions, with 41% expressing this view.12
12 Ibid.
- 8 - Douglas W. Shrader
When asking who should decide what is taught, racial lines provide slightly Who should decide what is taught different results than when asking “What in school? (2005 data) should be taught?” Each group exhibited 50 less confidence in school boards than they did in parents on the one hand or in 40 scientists and science teachers on the other: specifically, only 25% of African 30 Americans and 21% of Whites and Hispanics would entrust this decision to a 20 school board. Between the other two 10 options, however, Whites and African Americans expressed a desire to let 0 parents decide while Hispanics were Parents Scientists & School inclined to give a slightly stronger say to Science Boards scientists and science teachers. Whites Teachers favored parental decision to that of Total White scientists and science teachers by a margin African American Hispanic of 15 points (42% vs. 27%). African Americans provided a less but nonetheless significant 8 point edge for parents (37% vs. 29%). But Hispanics went the other way, favoring a decision by scientists and science teachers by 4 points (39% vs. 35% for parents).
The age of respondents also tended to make a difference on this question in a way in which it did not when they were asked “What should be taught?” People over 65 were considerably more distrustful of school boards (15%) and scientists (21%), but more willing to let parents decide (47%) than any other age group. Among those under 30, for example, school boards received a 20% confidence rating with 37% going to scientists and science teachers, but only 36% to parents.
The effect of education on this question was substantial, but less so than many might otherwise believe. Respondents who did not finish high school were unwilling to leave the matter either to school boards (17%) or scientists (22%), preferring as did the elderly to let parents decide (49%). Only 25% of college graduates would trust the decision to school boards (a mere 8 points more than those who did not finish high school). Slightly more than a third of college graduates Grading Public Schools on would trust scientists and science teachers Education about Evolution (2005) (38%), but a nearly identical percentage 40 would prefer to let parents decide (30%).
30 Finally, as should be fairly evident from what has already been written, Americans 20 are not especially happy with our public school curriculum concerning the origins
10 - 9 - 0 Parents of School-age Children
Excellent Good Only Fair Poor Don't Know Religion in America and evolution of human life. Only 5% of parents of school-age children rate their schools’ handling of evolution as “excellent.” Another 26% provide a rating of “good,” for a combined positive rating of 31% (less than one third). 33% rate the schools’ handling of the topic as “only fair” while 20% assign a score of “poor,” for a combined negative rating of 53% (over half). A disappointing 16% of parents admit that they simply do not know what rating to assign.
Evolution vs. Creationism vs. Intelligent Design
If you are baffled and confused by some of the statistics presented in the preceding section, you are not alone. I frequently found myself shaking my head, wondering how to reconcile the answers of diverse groups from one set of questions to the next, and asking: “What the heck are these people thinking?” or “How carefully have the respondents considered implications of their beliefs, their wants, and their values?”13 Even the Pew Forum researchers who are accustomed to working with statistics concerning public opinion on issues such as these noted:
… an analysis of the poll also reveals that there are considerable inconsistencies between people’s beliefs [concerning whether public schools should teach evolution, creationism, or both] and what they want taught in the schools, suggesting some confusion about the meaning of terms such as “creationism” and “evolution.”14
When you add intelligent design into the mix, the water gets even muddier. This lack of conceptual clarity plagues well-intentioned discourse concerning the topic throughout America. Students in my Philosophy of Religion classes typically have a rough understanding of Darwin’s theory and a general familiarity with the story of creation presented in the book of Genesis, but relatively few enter the class with anything more than that: a rough understanding and a general familiarity. It is difficult to know what participants in our Elderhostel sessions expected when they signed up for a course titled Stirring the Pot: Intellectual Design versus Science,15 but – partially because each speaker had a slightly different understanding of key concepts and issues – anyone looking for a simple answer or consensual perspective was sure to be disappointed. What our exchange did do fairly well was to demonstrate – not simply to our delightfully inquisitive and attentive seniors, but to the presenters as well – that questions concerning evolution, creationism, and intelligent design are complex and controversial, even among scholars working in related fields. Professor Fleischer confirmed that discussions at the
13 One particular statistic that still has me staring off into space, searching vainly for a coherent interpretation, is the following: 14% of respondents in the 2005 survey who personally believe in evolution by means of natural selection nonetheless favor a public school system that teaches only creationism!!! 14 Ibid. 15 The subtitle of the course – Intellectual Design (vs. Intelligent Design) – provides a wonderfully unintended case-in-point. I doubt that anyone was seriously misled by this substitution of similar terms, but it nonetheless serves as a poignant reminder of the slippery nature of this terrain.
- 10 - Douglas W. Shrader
Geology conference exhibited similar traits and characteristics: many of his colleagues seemed unaware of potentially significant differences between creationism and intelligent design.
As will be indicated below, there is an important sense in which the concept of intelligent design predates Darwin’s theory of evolution. In other respects, however, it is a relatively new idea that has been crafted to provide a quasi-religious alternative to Darwin’s theory. A few, seemingly straightforward definitions from online dictionaries will help illustrate how easy it is to become confused concerning not only intelligent design, but creationism and evolution as well. We begin with two definitions of creationism:
1. The belief that God created the universe.16 2. A doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis.17
Because the first definition is more general than the second (omitting reference to the book of Genesis as well as the concept of creatio ex nihilo), it is compatible with a variety of belief systems that would not only reject, but express contempt for the second definition. If we broaden the definition further (softening the monotheistic emphasis of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), we arrive at a concept of creationism that would be embraced by a much wider slice of the world’s population throughout the past ten thousand years: e.g. the belief that the universe was created by, owes its existence to, or depends on some spiritual force(s), power(s), and/or entity(-ies). Moreover, though the wording may seem strange, the fundamental concept of intelligent design as defined by the online edition of the Merriam-Webster dictionary would also merit acceptance by a large percentage of the world’s population (both past and present):
The theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence.18
At the broadest, most basic level, our three candidates concerning the origin and order of the world in which we live – creationism, evolution, and intelligent design – seem to be perfectly compatible with one another. In fact, there may even be some interesting complementary relationships between the three. Nonetheless, as flesh is added to the bones and each begins to flex its muscles, tensions develop that – at least in some formulations – manifest themselves as deep-seated hostilities and apparently fundamental incompatibilities.
16 MSN Encarta
- 11 - Religion in America
For example, a person who believes that the universe was created by a divine presence can, without contradiction or epistemic tension, also believe that it has changed or evolved over time. Moreover, there is no prima facie reason that same person cannot accept natural selection as the fundamental mechanism of biological evolution.
If, however, the individual is convinced that the creation account presented in the first chapter of Genesis is literally true, they will have little if any chance of getting that belief to sit comfortably with contemporary scientific accounts concerning the origins, age, and evolution of the universe.
Thus an organization dedicated to promoting the concept of intelligent design can genuinely hope to promote intelligent, informed, and non-confrontational education and exchange:
The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center is a recently formed non-profit organization dedicated to promoting awareness of scientific evidence that supports intelligent design theory and fostering good-spirited discussion and a better understanding … among students, educators, churches, and anyone else interested.19
However, when setting forth the theory of intelligent design – even using what appears to be measured speech and carefully guarded phrases – that same organization cannot help but describe it in terms that are sure to elicit some strong knee-jerk responses from the scientific community:
Intelligent design is a scientific theory which applies principles from information theory to detect where intelligent action is responsible for designing various aspects of life on earth. Intelligent design is similar to creationism in that it holds that evolution is incapable of explaining the complexity of life. Unlike creationism, however, intelligent design makes all claims under purely empirically-based scientific arguments, and makes no appeal to the supernatural and does not derive its claims from religious texts
19
- 12 - Douglas W. Shrader
nor theological doctrines. Though theories about the origins and diversification of life may have religious implications, intelligent design itself is a scientific theory with a secular and purely empirical basis.20
In a section titled “Primer: Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell,” the IDEA Center makes it clear that intelligent design is intended to replace, not supplement Darwinian evolution:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution. …
Intelligent design implies that life is here as a result of the purposeful action of an intelligent designer, standing in contrast to Darwinian evolution, which postulates that life exists due to the chance, purposeless, blind forces of nature.21
For many scientists, those are “fighting words.” The fourth edition of a Biological Anthology textbook (2005) comes out swinging. The author’s overview of “Chapter Five: The Origin of Species and the Shape of Evolution” concludes:
Finally, I return to the theme of science by looking at the pseudoscience of “scientific” creationism. I define pseudoscience, give several examples, and then show how “scientific” creationism is a perfect case. It is also, I point out, an example of the purposeful promotion of a pseudoscience by a small group who know exactly what they are doing and who have rather clear ulterior motives for doing so. I have now added “intelligent design,” a thinly disguised form of creationism, to the discussion.22
Definitions in the “Key Terms” section of the student edition leave little room for doubt about what students are supposed to learn in the class, as well as what counts as a correct vs. incorrect answer on the exam:
pseudoscience “Scientifically testable ideas that are taken on faith, even if tested and shown to be false. Scientific creationism is a pseudoscience.”
scientific “The belief in a literal biblical interpretation regarding the creationism creation of the universe, with the connected belief that this view is supported by scientific evidence. An example of a pseudoscience.”
20 Ibid. 21
- 13 - Religion in America
intelligent “The idea that an intelligent designer played a role in some design aspect of the evolution of life on earth, usually the origin of life itself. Generally, a thinly disguised version of scientific creationism.”23
The following statement from the National Science Teachers Association is somewhat less confrontational and inflammatory, but the language is strong and to the point:
The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) strongly supports the position that evolution is a major unifying concept in science and should be included in the K-12 science education frameworks and curricula. Furthermore, if evolution is not taught, students will not achieve the level of scientific literacy they need. This position is consistent with that of the National Academies, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and many other scientific and educational organizations.
NSTA also recognizes that evolution has not been emphasized in science curricula in a manner commensurate to its importance because of official policies, intimidation of science teachers, the general public’s misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, and a century of controversy. In addition, teachers are being pressured to introduce creationism, “creation science,” and other nonscientific views, which are intended to weaken or eliminate the teaching of evolution.24
In a section titled “Creationism and Other Non-Scientific Views,” the association focuses on the differences between science and religion:
The National Science Education Standards note that, “[e]xplanations of how the natural world changes based on myths, personal beliefs, religious values, mystical inspiration, superstition, or authority may be personally useful and socially relevant, but they are not scientific” (p. 201). Because science limits itself to natural explanations and not religious or ultimate ones, science teachers should neither advocate any religious interpretation of nature nor assert that religious interpretations of nature are not possible.
“Creation science” is a religious effort to support special creationism through methods of science. Teachers are often pressured to include it or other related nonscientific views such as “abrupt appearance theory,” “initial complexity theory,” “arguments against evolution,” or “intelligent design theory” when they teach evolution. Scientific creationist claims have been discredited by the available scientific evidence. They have no empirical power to explain the natural world and its diverse phenomena. Instead, creationists seek out supposed anomalies among many existing theories and accepted facts. Furthermore, “creation science” claims do not lead to new discoveries of scientific knowledge.25 23 Ibid.
- 14 - Douglas W. Shrader
In this light, my example of a person who tries to negotiate a compromise between creation, evolution, and intelligent design may seem naive, even simplistic to some. Nonetheless, I think it points the way toward a better understanding of the difficulties confronting not only the American public, but school boards, politicians, federal judges, and teachers as well.
As illustrated in the preceding section of this paper, Americans have a generally positive attitude toward science, but are unwilling to sacrifice traditional religious beliefs and values on a secular altar. In short, they want it both ways: both science and religion. Is it any wonder that individuals, as well as communities of individuals, exhibit uncertainty, tension and confusion concerning issues such as these?
As a professor who teaches both Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Religion, I can attest to a wide range of error and myth that infect the belief sets of supposedly well- educated college students. At the same time, I can testify to the sincerity with which they hold even logically inconsistent beliefs, their intellectual capability, and their willingness to critically examine and reevaluate presuppositions and convictions concerning both science and religion. As I speak with my students and listen attentively to their concerns, I find the same basic response pattern that I do when talking with their more seasoned counterparts in the Elderhostel or my colleagues in various sciences.
On the one hand, the concept of intelligent design has a certain intuitive appeal. Students do not want to dismiss the findings of modern science in favor of what many regard as a curious and outdated set of religious beliefs. By the same token, many are unwilling to buy into a cosmological theory in which everything that happens is a simple product of an enormously complex and unlikely set of random occurrences. The idea that evolution has occurred under the watchful eye of a supreme intelligence is reassuring at a personal level and, on the surface at least, seems to offer a way to reconcile scientific theory with spiritual intuition.
On the other hand, the concept of intelligent design seems too easy. As one student noted, it is like twenty-first-century snake oil: slick and nearly irresistible, but untested and potentially dangerous. They worry about philosophical foundations, empirical evidence,
- 15 - Religion in America and the risk of putting too much faith in a concept about which they know so little. Many simply suspend belief: they remain curious and tempted, yet deeply suspicious and mistrustful of the controversy as well as the concepts. Not knowing what to believe – or even what to use as guideposts to find their way through this bewilderingly labyrinth – they wander about the landscape, vacillating between the extremes, gradually becoming far too comfortable with confusion, uncertainty, and contradiction.
From a Rainbow Serpent to Darwin’s Finches: A brief history of the creation of the universe A few features of human thought are so widespread among diverse cultures that it is tempting to regard them as innate or instinctual. At the very least, they are powerful and pervasive influences throughout the history of human thought and – as such – are major players in controversies such as those concerning creation, evolution, and intelligent design. In terms of the current analysis, the following four take on special importance:
A. The notion that we can understand things by understanding their origins. B. A robust preference for order and predictability, often expressed as a need to overcome, control, or subdue the forces of chaos. C. A historical tendency to believe that a stable, orderly, and predictable cosmos depends upon and/or proves the existence of supernatural forces (e.g. divine beings). D. An intuitive sense that origins, function, and purpose are interconnected, often coupled with a further sense that origins strongly influence worth, dignity, and value: i.e. where something comes from is not simply a matter of idle curiosity, but an indispensable key to understanding what it is, what it does, and how much importance it has.26
Specific ways in which humans have expressed these ideas vary widely. Australian Aborigines, for example, tell stories about the so-called Dreamtime (a shadow realm in which shape and order were imposed on an otherwise formless world). One such story speaks of a rainbow serpent: The whole world was asleep. Everything was quiet, nothing moved, nothing grew. The animals slept under the earth. One day the rainbow snake woke up and crawled to the surface of the earth. She pushed everything aside that was in her
26 Consider for example the value of a gift or a family heirloom. The item in question may be priceless to the person to whom it was given, but worth little to a disinterested third party.
- 16 - Douglas W. Shrader
way. She wandered through the whole country and when she was tired she coiled up and slept. So she left her tracks. After she had been everywhere she went back and called the frogs. When they came out their tubby stomachs were full of water. The rainbow snake tickled them and the frogs laughed. The water poured out of their mouths and filled the tracks of the rainbow snake. That’s how rivers and lakes were created. Then grass and trees began to grow and the earth filled with life.27
Egyptians developed rather different stories concerning the creation of the universe. A Pyramid Text proclaims:
…the sky had not yet com[e] into being, the earth had not yet come into being, the gods had not yet been born, and death had not yet come into being.28
Atum – a god whose name means “totality” and who was thus sometime known as the “All-Father” or “Father of Everything” – began by creating himself. Atum pulled himself up from the dark, churning waters of Chaos, created a small island on which to sit, and proceeded to create two divine children: Shu (air) and Tefnut (water). The coupling of Shu and Tefnut begat two divine grandchildren: Nut (sky) and Geb (earth). Nut and Geb, in turn, gave birth to the more familiar Egyptian gods and goddesses who could both protect and cause difficulties for humans: Osiris, Isis, Seth, and Nephthys.
Over time, Atum came to be identified with the sun as well as with Amun, to whom the famous Temple of Karnak is dedicated. Every night, as the residents of Egypt slept, 27 “Indigenous Australians.”
- 17 - Religion in America priests would carefully track the motions of stars. As time for sunrise approached, they would awaken other priests who ritually reenacted Atum’s creation. Apparently they believed that the sun was placed on a boat at night, to be ferried through an underworld river past an assortment of obstacles (including an arch-nemesis in the form of a snake named “Apophis”). Somehow, through their daily reenactment of creation, the priests of Karnak protected the people of Egypt by increasing the likelihood that Amun would overcome the obstacles, that the sun would be reborn, that order would prevail, and that Chaos would be held at bay for another day.
Centuries later, the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle defended a model of the cosmos in which the sun revolved around a spherical earth in an unimpeded, perfectly natural orbit. Unlike Egyptian priests of old, they did not lose sleep wondering whether the sun was going to rise the next morning. Rather than holding Chaos at bay on a daily basis through sacrifice or ritual enactment, Plato and Aristotle argued that the cosmos is a regular, orderly, and predictable environment governed by principles that can be ascertained and comprehended by human reason. They had little time for the classical gods and goddesses of Mount Olympus (Zeus, Athena, Poseidon, et al.), but both philosophers became convinced that the orderly nature of the universe depended on an unnamed creator.
In his Timaeus – the same dialogue in which he introduced the story of Atlantis – Plato argued that the universe as we find it could not have come into being without three things: (1) the Receptacle of Becoming (i.e. a material fabric capable of manifesting the orderly processes we observe), (2) the ordering principles themselves (including but not limited to what we call “laws of nature” – more generally, his ordering principles are known as “Platonic Forms”), and (3) a creator (the “Father of the Universe”)29 who imposes the order of Forms on an otherwise chaotic Receptacle of Becoming (i.e. gives form to the formless).30 He wrote:
God therefore, wishing that all things should be good, and so far as possible nothing be imperfect, and finding the visible universe in a state … of inharmonious and disorderly motion, reduced it to order from disorder, as he judged that order was in every way better.31
29 Plato. Timaeus and Critias (circa 360 BC). Translated with an introduction and an appendix on Atlantis by H.D.P. Lee. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, Ltd., 1971. Page 56 [41]. 30 It is interesting to compare the actions of Plato’s Father of the Universe with those of the Aboriginal Rainbow Serpent. While the Cosmic Serpent “simply” slithered about the landscape – manifesting instinctual but seemingly random behavior characteristic of any snake – the Father of the Universe is characterized as acting with intelligence and purpose. Thus we might reasonably argue that the second, but not the first, is an example of intelligent design. Even so, the bottom line is remarkably similar: giving form to a previously formless environment. 31 Ibid. p. 42 [30].
- 18 - Douglas W. Shrader
For Plato, it is God’s goodness that serves as a motive cause for creation of the universe. For his student, Aristotle, God is so good and so perfect that he gives rise to our existence but remains blissfully unaware of our imperfections.
For over two millennia, philosophers and scientists have built upon the foundations established by Plato and Aristotle. Some philosophers, such as Thomas Aquinas (13th c.) and William Paley (18th c.), developed a line of reasoning commonly known as “The Argument from Design.” Paley asks his reader to imagine the difference between stubbing one’s toe on a rock and finding a watch. The more closely we examine the construction and operation of the watch, the more convinced a dispassionate observer should become:
…that the watch must have had a maker: that there must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer … who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction and designed its use.
… There cannot be design without a designer; …order without choice; [or] arrangement, without anything capable of arranging…32
Although the argument is neither science nor scientific, its focus on order, complexity, and purpose has appealed to numerous scientists, including foundational figures like Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. In fact, Charles Darwin was virtually mesmerized by the argument.
As a student at Cambridge, Darwin was assigned the same rooms that Paley had occupied. Paley’s Evidences of Chris- tianity (1794) and his Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy (1785) were among the books selected for Darwin’s baccalaureate examination in 1830. In his Autobiography (1876), he recalled:
I am convinced that I could have written out the whole of the Evidences with perfect correctness, but not of course in the clear language of Paley. The logic of this book and as I may add of his Natural Theology, gave me as much delight as did Euclid. The careful study of these works … was the only part of the … Course which … was
32 Natural Theology. Quoted in Douglas W. Shrader, Philosophy and Religion. NY: McGraw-Hill, 2003. Pages 104, 107.
- 19 - Religion in America
of the least use to me in the education of my mind. I did not at that time trouble myself about Paley’s premises; and taking these on trust I was charmed and convinced by the long line of argumentation.33
Five years after graduation, while serving as a naturalist on the HMS Beagle, Darwin found himself in the Galapagos Islands where he was especially impressed by finches. Some “had parrotlike beaks for eating fruit and cracking seedpods. Some had beaks like sparrows for eating seeds. Others had long pointed beaks for sipping nectar from flowers.”34 Was this evidence of intelligent design? Had the creator designed the beaks of each species in a way that was uniquely suited to available food sources? Darwin returned to Paley’s argument again and again, this time questioning the premises and formulating alternatives. Eventually, he posited an evolutionary explanation of the finches’ beaks. Even so, on the very day that his monumental Origin of Species was published in 1859, Darwin expressed a special fondness for Paley:
I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley’s Natural Theology: I could almost formerly have said it by heart.35
The history of science, like most human history, is rarely as neat or inexorable as subsequent generations might like to think. Nor does it occur for the reasons championed by either its beneficiaries or its malcontents. A textbook sketch of Darwin’s “discovery” of natural selection might easily lead a student to believe that his breakthrough was the result of a rigorous, unbiased application of the scientific method. Social, personal, and historical truths are far more subtle and complex. Darwin entered college to study medicine, but could not stomach the sight of blood. He changed his course of studies to theology, not science. Darwin was preparing to become a member of the clergy, not a biologist who would be reviled and vilified by ministers for centuries to come. As indicated above, he was especially enchanted by the ideas set forth in Paley’s Natural Theology.
The mainspring of Natural Theology is deceptively simple, but potentially powerful as well. If the relationship between God and the natural world is analogous to the relationship between a watchmaker and a watch, we should be able to discern important traits and features of the artisan through careful, unbiased, empirical study of the artifact. Thus, as a theologian committed to learning about God, Darwin was drawn to the study of nature. During the five-year voyage of the Beagle he came face to face with what Alfred Lord Tennyson later called “nature red in tooth and claw.”
33 Quoted in Frank J. Sulloway, “Why Darwin Rejected Intelligent Design.”
- 20 - Douglas W. Shrader
Are God and Nature then at strife, That Nature lends such evil dreams? So careful of the type she seems, So careless of the single life; That I, considering everywhere Her secret meaning in her deeds, And finding that of fifty seeds She often brings but one to bear, … ‘So careful of the type?’ but no. From scarped cliff and quarried stone She cries, ‘A thousand types are gone: I care for nothing, all shall go. ‘Thou makest thine appeal to me: I bring to life, I bring to death: The spirit does but mean the breath: I know no more.’ And he, shall he, Man, her last work, who seem’d so fair, Such splendid purpose in his eyes, Who roll’d the psalm to wintry skies, Who built him fanes of fruitless prayer, Who trusted God was love indeed And love Creation’s final law– Tho’ Nature, red in tooth and claw With ravine, shriek’d against his creed– Who loved, who suffer’d countless ills, Who battled for the True, the Just, Be blown about the desert dust, Or seal’d within the iron hills? No more? A monster then, a dream, A discord. Dragons of the prime, That tare each other in their slime, Were mellow music match’d with him. O life as futile, then, as frail! O for thy voice to soothe and bless! What hope of answer, or redress? Behind the veil, behind the veil.36
36 Alfred Lord Tennyson. In Memoriam A.H.H. (LV-LVI.)
- 21 - Religion in America
The confrontation between concept and experience, for Darwin as it was for Tennyson, was a version of what philosophers call “The Problem of Evil.” How can we reconcile belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God with the extraordinary amount of seemingly undeserved pain and suffering that we find in this world? Charles Darwin’s aversion to blood and guts derailed his career in natural theology as surely as it did his career in medicine. Ironic as it may seem given the current controversy, Darwin’s loss of faith in God grew organically from a sensitive and conscientious application of Paley’s method of natural theology, not a rote application of a secular scientific method. If the character of the watchmaker is revealed in the watch, Darwin would rather do without. The tension between design and misery, and the extent to which the matter weighed heavily on him, are evident in an 1860 letter to his collaborator Asa Gray:
With respect to the theological view of the question: This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically, but I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars or that a cat should play with mice... On the other hand, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance.37 Thirteen years later, in a letter to a correspondent at the University of Utrecht in 1873, Darwin continued to wrestle with precisely the same issues:
I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wond- rous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came from and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am, also, induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of many able men who have fully believed in God; but here again I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion
37 “Charles Darwin’s Views on Religion.”
- 22 - Douglas W. Shrader
seems to me to be that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man’s intellect; but man can do his duty.38
In short, the concept of intelligent design has a rich, illustrious history, only a small sliver of which is told by either side. In proper context, both the concept and its history can be informative, fascinating, and illuminating. Deciding what role that should play in the science curriculum of a public school system, however, remains a divisive and contentious issue.
Intelligent Design and the Public School Science Curriculum: What are we teaching our kids? As demonstrated by the preceding sections of this paper: (i) public opinion concerning the origin and evolution of life varies widely, (ii) confusion and misunderstanding continue to cloud even well-intentioned discussions concerning the various positions, and (iii) many Americans remain deeply dissatisfied with the quality of instruction our schools have provided on these topics. For these reasons, our courts are periodically besieged with an avalanche of cases designed to change the public school science curriculum. In terms of the present discussion, two cases are especially worth of note: Edwards v. Aguillard (June 1987) and Kitzmiller v. Dover (December 2005).
Edwards v. Aguillard (482 U.S. 578, 583 (June 1987)) In the early 1980s, the Louisiana State Legislature passed a law titled the “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act” (a.k.a. “The Creationism Act”).39 The law did not require either creationism or evolution to be taught in public schools, but under the banners of academic freedom and balanced treatment, it did require that the teaching of either be “balanced” by the teaching of its alternative.
The constitutionality of the Creationism Act was challenged in Federal Court by parents, religious leaders, and teachers: including a biology teacher (Don Edwards) whose name will forever be associated with the case. The District Court granted a summary injunction, ruling that the Act violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.40 Specifically:
38 Ibid. 39 La.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§ 17:286.1-17:286.7. 40 Aguillard v. Treen, 634 F. Supp. 426 (ED La. 1985).
- 23 - Religion in America
The court held that there can be no valid secular reason for prohibiting the teaching of evolution, a theory historically opposed by some religious de- nominations. The court further concluded that “the teaching of ‘creation- science’ and ‘creation-ism,’ as contemplated by the statute, involves teaching ‘tail-ored to the principles’ of a particular religious sect or group of sects.” The District Court therefore held that the Creation-ism Act violated the Establish-ment Clause either because it prohibited the teaching of evolu-tion or because it required the teaching of creation science with the purpose of advancing a particular religious doctrine.41
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court ruling in 1985.42 On December 10, 1986, the case was argued before the United States Supreme Court. Summarizing the Appellate decision, the Supreme Court noted:
The court observed that the statute’s avowed purpose of protecting academic freedom was inconsistent with requiring, upon risk of sanction, the teaching of creation science whenever evolution is taught. The court found that the Louisiana Legislature’s actual intent was “to discredit evolution by counterbalancing its teaching at every turn with the teaching of creationism, a religious belief.”43
41 Edwards v. Aguillard (482 U.S. 578, 583 (June 1987))
- 24 - Douglas W. Shrader
In a split decision issued June 19, 1987, the Supreme Court upheld the rulings of both lower courts.44 They based much of their analysis on the so-called “Lemon Test.”
The Establishment Clause forbids the enactment of any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” The Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether legislation comports with the Establishment Clause. First, the legislature must have adopted the law with a secular purpose. Second, the statute’s principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute must not result in an excessive entanglement of government with religion. State action violates the Establishment Clause if it fails to satisfy any of these prongs.45
Concerning the first prong of the test (purpose), the Court challenged the stated purposes of the legislation (academic freedom and balanced education):
While the Court is normally deferential to a State’s articulation of a secular purpose, it is required that the statement of such purpose be sincere, and not a sham. …
It is clear from the legislative history that the purpose of the legislative sponsor, Senator Bill Keith, was to narrow the science curriculum. During the legislative hearings, Senator Keith stated: “My preference would be that neither [creationism nor evolution] be taught.” Such a ban on teaching does not promote – indeed, it undermines – the provision of a comprehensive scientific education.46
To examine the possibility that the Creationism Act concealed a religious agenda, they began by citing legal precedent:
As in Stone and Abington, we need not be blind in this case to the legislature’s preeminent religious purpose in enacting this statute. There is a historic and contemporaneous link between the teachings of certain religious denominations and the teaching of evolution. It was this link that concerned the Court in Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), which also involved a facial challenge to a statute regulating the teaching of evolution. In that case, the Court reviewed an Arkansas statute that made it unlawful for an instructor to teach evolution or to use a textbook that referred to this scientific theory. Although the Arkansas anti-evolution law did not explicitly state its predominate religious purpose, the Court could not ignore that “[t]he statute was a
44 The majority opinion, authored by Justice Brennan, was joined by Justices Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, and Stevens. Justice O’Connor joined in all but Part I of the opinion. Justice White concurred with the judgment, but not the opinion of the court. Justice Scalia authored a dissenting opinion, in which he was joined by Justice Rehnquist. 45 Ibid. citing Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-613 (1971) [footnotes omitted]. The Lemon Test has become a source of substantial disagreement and considerable tension between justices on the Supreme Court. In a separate paper published earlier this year, I argue that the test has become a judicial liability (failing to provide guidance and, perhaps, even adding to the murkiness of the waters it was intended to clarify): Douglas W. Shrader, “Thou Shalt Not: Supreme Court Rulings Concerning Public Displays of Religious Symbols.” Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Hawaii International Conference on Arts and Humanities. Honolulu, HI: 2006: pp. 5564-5608. 46 Edwards v. Aguillard. (482 U.S. 578, 583 (June 1987)). Op. cit. Omitting footnotes and citations.
- 25 - Religion in America
product of the upsurge of ‘fundamentalist’ religious fervor” that has long viewed this particular scientific theory as contradicting the literal interpretation of the Bible. After reviewing the history of anti-evolution statutes, the Court determined that “there can be no doubt that the motivation for the [Arkansas] law was the same [as other anti- evolution statutes]: to suppress the teaching of a theory which, it was thought, “denied” the divine creation of man.”47
Turning to the specifics of the Louisiana legislation, the court concluded:
These same historic and contemporaneous antagonisms between the teachings of certain religious denominations and the teaching of evolution are present in this case. The preeminent purpose of the Louisiana Legislature was clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind. The term “creation science” was defined as embracing this particular religious doctrine by those responsible for the passage of the Creationism Act. Senator Keith’s leading expert on creation science, Edward Boudreaux, testified at the legislative hearings that the theory of creation science included belief in the existence of a supernatural creator. Senator Keith also cited testimony from other experts to support the creation-science view that “a creator [was] responsible for the universe and everything in it.” The legislative history therefore reveals that the term “creation science,” as contemplated by the legislature that adopted this Act, embodies the religious belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of humankind.48
Because they could not rule out the prima facie possibility that a scientific theory might, in principle, support belief in the existence of a supernatural creator, the Court examined the legislative record to determine the “true intents” of the Act’s sponsor:
Furthermore, it is not happenstance that the legislature required the teaching of a theory that coincided with this religious view. The legislative history documents that the Act’s primary purpose was to change the science curriculum of public schools in order to provide persuasive advantage to a particular religious doctrine that rejects the factual basis of evolution in its entirety. The sponsor of the Creationism Act, Senator Keith, explained during the legislative hearings that his disdain for the theory of evolution resulted from the support that evolution supplied to views contrary to his own religious beliefs.49
47 Ibid. Omitting footnotes and citations. 48 Ibid. Omitting footnotes and citations. 49 Ibid. Omitting footnotes and citations.
- 26 - Douglas W. Shrader
It was a high-stakes, high-profile case. An Amicus Curiae brief filed by seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen State Academies of Science, and seven other scientific organizations provided abundant support:
The Louisiana Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act (the “Act”) violates the Establishment Clause, as incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Act’s illegitimate bias toward the outlook of a particular religious sect is reflected in two separate provisions. One calls for the presentation of the religious tenets of “creation-science” in public-school science classes. The other singles out the domain of evolutionary science for special pejorative treatment.
The Act mandates “balanced treatment” of evolution and “creation-science,” but contains no definition of “creation-science” beyond a tautological reference to “scientific evidences of creation.” Orthodox “creation-science” has traditionally embraced religious tenets, most notably: divine creation “from nothing,” distinct “kinds” of plants and animals, a worldwide flood, and a relatively recent inception of the universe. …
In sum, all relevant guides to the Act’s meaning confirm that it calls for the religious tenets of orthodox creation-science to be taught in the public schools.50 50
- 27 - Religion in America
The ruling may have sent a chill through the halls of organizations hoping to incorporate creation science into the public school curriculum, but it did little to satisfy concerns or clarify confusions for citizens of Louisiana. Moreover, it seems to have had a fairly negligible impact on the way evolution is actually taught in that state. Twelve years later, in his Ph.D. thesis at Louisiana State University, Don Aguillard reported that:
1. 41% of LA public school biology teachers indicated either that creationism has a scientific foundation (24%) or they were not sure (17%). 2. There is a statistically significant correlation between instructional time devoted to evolution and beliefs regarding the validity of creationism. 3. More that 75% of LA public school biology teachers judged their academic training in evolution as inadequate. 4. Most biology teachers report spending fewer than 5 hours (of about 180) dealing with evolution throughout the school year.51
Suddenly, in this light, the seemingly incoherent and contradictory responses of Americans to the survey questions considered in the first part of this paper no longer seem quite so surprising. Moreover, if biology teachers spend fewer than five hours per year on a controversial topic about which they feel uncertain and ill-equipped to teach, the public’s widespread disagreement and dissatisfaction concerning the quality of instruction about the origins and evolution of life seem quite reasonable.
In short, the Supreme Court ruling did nothing to alleviate the social conditions or rectify the pedagogic problems that gave rise to the conflict in the first place. As such, everyone knew that it would just be a matter of time before the issue resurfaced in somewhat
51 Ron Good, “Evolution and Creationism: One Long Argument” – citing Don Aguillard. An Analysis of Factors Influencing the Teaching of Biological Evolution in Louisiana Public Secondary Schools (Dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, 1998).
- 28 - Douglas W. Shrader different clothes. The Court acknowledged, at least at an individual level, the possibility of a compromise or synthesis between creationism and evolution:
While the belief in the instantaneous creation of humankind by a supernatural creator may require the rejection of every aspect of the theory of evolution, an individual instead may choose to accept some or all of this scientific theory as compatible with his or her spiritual outlook.52
Furthermore, if proponents of creation science were looking for an open door, the following passage in the majority opinion must have seemed like a godsend:
We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. Indeed, the Court acknowledged in Stone that its decision forbidding the posting of the Ten Commandments did not mean that no use could ever be made of the Ten Commandments, or that the Ten Commandments played an exclusively religious role in the history of Western Civilization. In a similar way, teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.53
In Dover, Pennsylvania, the School Board decided to test that open door.
Kitzmiller v. Dover (PA: 12/20/2005 - Case No. 04cv2688) On October 18, 2004, the Dover Area School Board of Directors passed the following resolution (by a vote of 6-3):
Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of Life is not taught.54
On November 19th, the District issued a press release announcing that teachers would henceforth be required to read the following statement to students in the ninth grade biology class at Dover High School (effective January 2005): The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
52 Edwards v. Aguillard. (482 U.S. 578, 583 (June 1987)). Op. cit. (Note 11.) 53 Ibid. Omitting references and citations. 54 Kitzmiller v. Dover (PA: 12/20/2005 - Case No. 04cv2688).
- 29 - Religion in America
Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.55
Less than one month later, on December 14th, Tammy Kitzmiller et al. filed suit, challenging the resolution as well as the press release (collectively known as “the ID Policy”) as a violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause. The District Court Judge before whom the case was tried, John E. Jones III, had been appointed by President George W. Bush in 2002.56 If proponents of intelligent design believed their chances of winning were enhanced by having a conservative judge, they were soon disappointed. Regardless of what his personal sentiments may have been, Judge Jones had little choice but to apply judicial precedent as established by the Supreme Court: the “Lemon Test,” the “Endorsement Test,” Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), and McCreary County et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union of KY (545 U.S. (2005)).57
Judge Jones explained that the endorsement test “recognizes that when government transgresses the limits of neutrality and acts in ways that show religious favoritism or sponsorship, it violates the Establishment Clause.”58 He then cited, with approval, an opinion issued by Supreme Court Justice O’Connor that the endorsement test is “a gloss on Lemon that encompassed both the purpose and effect prongs.”
The central issue in this case is whether [the government] has endorsed [religion] by its [actions].
To answer that question, we must examine both what [the government] intended to communicate ... and what message [its conduct] actually conveyed. The purpose and effect prongs of the Lemon test represent these two aspects of the meaning of the [government’s] action.59
55 Ibid. 56 Readers interested in this dimension of jurisprudence will find helpful biographies online at the following sites:
- 30 - Douglas W. Shrader
Reversing the order of these two components, Judge Jones addressed first the question of message (effect). How had residents of the school district interpreted the actions of the board’s ID Policy? Despite “strenuous objection” from the defendants, he admitted into evidence numerous letters to the editor and editorials from the York Daily Record and the York Dispatch. He explained:
The letters and editorials are not offered for the truth of what is contained therein, but they are probative of the perception of the community at large. They reveal that the entire community has consistently and unwaveringly understood the controversy to concern whether a religious view should be taught as science in the Dover public school system.
...hundreds of individuals in this small community felt it necessary to pub- lish their views on the issues presented in this case for the community to see. Moreover, a review of the letters and editorials at issue reveals that in letter after letter and editorial after editor- ial, community members postulated that ID is an inherently religious con- cept, that the writers viewed the decision of whether to incorporate it into the high school biology curriculum as one which implicated a religious concept, and therefore that the curri- culum change has the effect of placing the government’s imprimatur on the Board’s preferred religious viewpoint.60
Following an extended discussion of whether intelligent design is a scientific theory, 61 Judge Jones returned to the intended purpose of Dover’s ID Policy (per the Lemon Test as well as the first component of the Establishment Test, above). Based in part on a chronology that included statements by board members concerning the importance of
60 Kitzmiller v. Dover (PA: 12/20/2005 - Case No. 04cv2688). Op. cit. (Pages 58-59, 61). 61 He concluded: “a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science.” Ibid. (Page 89).
- 31 - Religion in America teaching creationism (not simply intelligent design) and a desire to bring “prayer and faith back into the schools,”62 he concluded:
The disclaimer’s plain language, the legislative history, and the historical context in which the ID Policy arose, all inevitably lead to the conclusion that Defendants consciously chose to change Dover’s biology curriculum to advance religion. We have been presented with a wealth of evidence which reveals that the District’s purpose was to advance creationism, an inherently religious view, both by introducing it directly under the label ID and by disparaging the scientific theory of evolution, so that creationism would gain credence by default as the only apparent alternative to evolution…63
In retrospect, the Dover Area School Board of Directors may wish that they had left well enough alone: that they had not been quite so eager to test the judicial waters concerning such a divisive and controversial subject. Judge Jones’ admonition in Kitzmiller v. Dover is scathing, but not without warrant:
… this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID…. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed…. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.64
Charting a More Intelligent Course: Where do we go from here? Clearly, the problem has not been resolved. The American public remains confused and divided over a set of issues that many consider a matter of fundamental importance. The introduction of intelligent design, whatever the motives, seems to have done little more than add to the confusion. In an August 2005 article in the New York Times Magazine, William Safire described the changing linguistic landscape concerning creationism and intelligent design: The marketing genius within the phrase – and the reason it now drives many scientists and educators up the walls of academe – is in its use of the adjective intelligent, which intrinsically refutes the longstanding accusation of anti-intellectualism. Although the intelligent agent referred to is Divine with a capital D, the word’s meaning also rubs off on the proponent or believer. That’s why intelligent design appeals to not only the DNA-driven Discovery Institute complexity theorists but also the traditional God’s- handiwork faithful.
62 Ibid. (Page 94: note 21). 63 Ibid. (Page 93). 64 Ibid. (Pages.137-138).
- 32 - Douglas W. Shrader
This banner floating over two disparate armies challenging evolutionary theory has the Darwinist scientific establishment going ape. Prof. Leonard Krishtalka of the University of Kansas lumped the armies together … in a widely quoted definition of the I.D. movement as “nothing more than creationism in a cheap tuxedo.” …[He] added: “It’s a sophisticated camouflage of Genesis-driven creationism. Intelligent design sounds scientific, and they couch it as science instead of religion. It’s frighteningly Orwellian.” Alan Leshner, C.E.O. of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, says: “Whether or not there is or was an intelligent designer is not a scientific question. It’s not an alternative to evolution. What they are trying to do is get religion in the science classroom.” 65
As we have seen, U.S. District Court Judge Jones agreed with Krishtalka and Leshner: intelligent design is not science and thus has no place in the science curriculum of public schools. Even so, in the process of ruling against intelligent design, Judge Jones stressed a perspective that Americans who want both science and religion should find encouraging: … many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolu- tionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, … scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.66 In the final analysis, there are no easy answers; but a few points do seem clear. First, we need to listen to the American public, especially the parents of school-age children: our public schools are simply not doing enough in this area. Second, we need to pay serious attention to statistics such as those presented by Don Aguillard in his 1998 Ph.D. thesis. If biology teachers spend fewer than five hours per year on a critical but controversial topic about which they feel uncertain and ill-equipped to teach, we need to find ways to improve their education, supply appropriate resources, and restructure the curriculum to provide a more appropriate measure of time. Third, if Americans want their children to
65 William Safire, “Neo-Creo.” New York Times Magazine (August 21, 2005).
- 33 - Religion in America learn about God – including but not limited to concepts like creation and intelligent design – we need to be more diligent about taking them to religious services, providing high quality instructional programs designed to teach rather than entertain or indoctrinate, and perpetually reinforcing the lessons at home. Finally, as difficult and uncertain as it may be, we need to continue to offer opportunities for learning and intellectual exchange such as the one with which I began this paper: five professors and a Baptist minister coming together to share views about science and intelligent design with a dynamic mix of inquisitive senior citizens and open-minded college students.
Douglas W. Shrader Philosophy Department Distinguished Teaching Professor State University of New York & Chair of Philosophy College at Oneonta SUNY Oneonta 1 Ravine Parkway Oneonta, NY 13820-4015 USA Oneonta, NY 13820-4015 [email protected] Phone: 607-436-2456 Fax: 607-436-2653 REFERENCES
Aguillard, Don. An Analysis of Factors Influencing the Teaching of Biological Evolution in Louisiana Public Secondary Schools (Dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, 1998). “Charles Darwin’s Views on Religion.”
- 34 - Douglas W. Shrader
Christian, James. Philosophy, 5th edition. Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1990. Good, Ron. “Evolution and Creationism: One Long Argument”
- 35 - Religion in America
Shrader, Douglas W. “Render Unto Caesar” Proceedings of the Third Annual Hawaii International Conference on Arts and Humanities. Honolulu, HI: 2005: pp. 5520- 5527. Shrader, Douglas W. “Thou Shalt Not: Supreme Court Rulings Concerning Public Displays of Religious Symbols.” Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Hawaii International Conference on Arts and Humanities. Honolulu, HI: 2006: pp. 5564- 5608. Shrader, Douglas W. “Beyond Tolerance: Globalization, Freedom, and Religious Pluralism.” Humanity at the Turning Point: Rethinking Nature, Culture and Freedom. Sonja Servomaa (editor). Helsinki: Renvall Institute for Area and Cultural Studies, 2006. Sulloway, Frank J. “Why Darwin Rejected Intelligent Design.”
Court Records and Rulings Aguillard v. Treen, 634 F. Supp. 426 (ED La. 1985). “Amicus Curiae brief of 72 Nobel Laureates, 17 State Academies of Science and 7 other scientific organizations in support of appellees.”
- 36 - Douglas W. Shrader
Edwards v. Aguillard: Supreme Court. (482 U.S. 578, 583 (June 1987))
Graphs, Images, and Pictures All graphs and charts were created by the author specifically for this paper. Along the text, they are copyrighted by the author (November 2006) and may not be reproduced or used by others without written permission from the author. All images and pictures are in the public domain. Specifics, by page number, follow: p. 12: Albrecht Dürer: Adam and Eve (1507): given by Christina of Sweden to King Philip IV, 1654.
- 37 - Religion in America p. 27: Camille Flammarion: L'Atmosphere: Météorologie Populaire (Paris, 1888), p. 163. “The Flammarion Woodcut is an enigmatic woodcut by an unknown artist. … The woodcut depicts a man peering through the Earth's atmosphere as if it were a curtain to look at the inner workings of the universe. The caption translates to ‘A medieval missionary tells that he has found the point where heaven [the sense here is ‘sky’] and Earth meet...’”
- 38 -