A FEDERAL court in Atlanta, Ga., has ruled that a
disclaimer placed by a Georgia school board in its science textbooks
violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The
sticker states: "This textbook contains material on evolution.
Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living
things. This material should be approached with an open mind,
studied carefully, and critically considered."
If, like me,
you missed the constitutional violation, let U.S. District Court
Judge Clarence Cooper explain: "By denigrating evolution, the School
Board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative
theory, creationism or variations thereof . . . ."
According
to this reasoning, then, merely stating the unimpeachable fact that
evolution is a theory and encouraging students to have an open mind,
to study carefully and to critically consider the theory is
"denigrating" evolution. This, in the court's mind, is tantamount to
"endorsing" creationism or variations thereof.
Judge Cooper
continued with his explanation for finding an Establishment Clause
violation: "evolution is more than a theory of origin in the context
of science. To the contrary, evolution is the dominant scientific
theory of origin accepted by the majority of
scientists."
Well, there we have it. Scientific "truth" by
majority rule. Evolution is the dominant theory of origin, and no
one is to have an open mind about it. If such thinking had prevailed
in the 17th century, Galileo would be a mere footnote in history,
and the Ptolemaic model of the universe rather than the Copernican
model would have prevailed because, it was, by Judge Cooper's
reasoning, "accepted by the majority of scientists."
The
disclaimer's origin is apparently linked to a group of Cobb County
parents who are opposed to evolution on religious grounds. These
parents, it seems, requested that a disclaimer be placed in the
science textbooks. It may be that their objections are religiously
based, but it is equally true that the language in the disclaimer
suggests absolutely nothing about religion.
The court was
concerned, however, that evolution was singled out by the sticker. I
suspect that evolution was singled out because it is the only
scientific theory whose adherents are utterly intolerant of
criticism, and it is the only scientific theory taught in public
schools as the gospel truth that no reasonable person could
question. This is not only troubling for parents whose religion
rejects the theory, but it is equally troubling from an academic,
scientific, and intellectual perspective for obvious
reasons.
Finally, the court saw another sinister reason for
the sticker, stating: "An informed, reasonable observer would
understand the School Board to be endorsing the viewpoint of
Christian fundamentalists and creationists that evolution is a
problematic theory lacking an adequate foundation."
That
statement speaks volumes about the federal judiciary's unrelenting
assault on all things Christian. Christian "fundamentalists" and
"creationists" make for convenient whipping boys in lieu of reasoned
analysis, even when they are calling for an open mind in scientific
inquiry.
The theory of evolution has far too long been
shielded from critical examination. The tired old tactic of
shrieking "fundamentalist" or "creationist" every time a question
about evolution arises is wearing thin. Dissenting voices in the
scientific and academic communities are increasing in number despite
tremendous institutional pressures to conform to the orthodoxy of
philosophic naturalism.
Despite Judge Cooper's assertion,
critics of evolutionary theory include not only fundamentalists and
creationists, but eminent scientists who subscribe to the
intelligent design theory, prominent atheists, and, yes, even some
scientists who are in the camp of Darwin but are nonetheless
dissatisfied with its present condition.
Antony Flew, for
example, the famous atheist and British philosopher, recently riled
evolution's high priests when he stated his new ideas had some
similarity with American intelligent design theorists, who see
evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe.
Flew wrote that biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the
almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed
to produce [life], that intelligence must have been
involved."
And, if the federal courts are listening, Antony
Flew is "thinking of a God very different from the God of the
Christian and far and away from the God of Islam." In other words he
is not a "Christian fundamentalist or creationist."
It is
troubling enough when the scientific community itself forecloses
critical examination of its pet theory; it is positively frightening
when the federal judiciary steps in to enforce that intolerance
toward critical thinking and open inquiry in our public
schools.
Students must be allowed to think for themselves
about this important matter of life's origin. Cobb County's
disclaimer was a welcome step in that direction. If the federal
judiciary is really interested in academic and intellectual freedom
as cases not involving "creationists" and "fundamentalists" would
suggest, it is time for them to stop crusading against critical
thinking simply because "fundamentalists" and "creationists" are for
it.
[2005/01/22] Is encouraging critical thinking unconstitutional?
