Over the past few years The Enquirer has published a number of op-ed and "your voice" columns as well as articles and letters on the topic of evolution, and Young Earth and Intelligent Design Creationism. So far, the arguments have communicated back-and-forth about as much as two freight trains passing each other going in opposite directions.

It seems to us that public discussions of social values become the most contentious when the opposing sides on an issue are speaking from positions that emphasize very different, positive values. Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC), Young Earth Creationism (YEC), and other forms of Creationism are in such a collision with the scientific theory of evolution in Ohio's public high school biology curriculum. Both sides start from strong, positive, and important values:

1. a preeminent belief in God's role as Creator with dominion over all things (representing Theistic Evolution, IDC, and YEC), compared to
2. a rigorous commitment to the methods of science (including the methods of evolutionary biology).

In the past six months, President Bush, Governor Taft, and Tennessee Senator Frist have expressed support for teaching some form of Creationism in our public schools. And the new Pope has declared God's Creation to be an "intelligent project." By contrast, Presidential Science Advisor John Marburger, stated that IDC is not science. And former President Jimmy Carter, a nuclear scientist and evangelical Christian, said that he does not "believe that there is any incompatibility between them [science and religion]."

President Carter described the current controversy as a result of "religious leaders [who] have tried to insert their faith into the scientific classrooms of elementary, high school, and college courses, and I don't think that's appropriate." (National Public Radio, Morning Edition, 11/04/2005.)

Further, the majority on the Kansas State Board of Education has passed a new set of science standards that reflect a Creationist perspective on evolution.

More recently, on December 20, 2005, in the Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School Board (DASD) trial in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Federal District Court Judge John E. Jones delivered a comprehensive and sweeping rejection of the concept of Intelligent Design (ID) as science and a thorough demonstration of its roots in fundamentalist Christian Creationism. Further, the judge identified similarities in practice and argument (for example the identification of "gaps" or "problems" in the theory of evolution) between ID and older Creationist assertions that refute any claim to science. Importantly, the judge did not express an opinion on the religious philosophy of Intelligent Design. The judge restricted his opinion to ruling 1) against the proposition that Intelligent Design is science, and 2) that therefore ID is not appropriate for inclusion in the public school science curriculum. While the judge's ruling is limited in jurisdiction to the Middle District of Pennsylvania in United States Federal District Court, his opinion is highly relevant to any similar cases which might be brought in other states throughout the U.S.

Finally, the Enquirer reported on December 25, 2005, that the Governor of Kentucky, Ernie Fletcher, advocated "providing instruction on all theories." He said, "The foundation of our nation was based on inalienable rights endowed by a creator. And so the very foundation of democracy is based on intelligent design."

Just like the passing freight trains, the opposing arguments are scattered like dead leaves blown off the railway ballast.

Where is the common ground?

Our purpose is to briefly describe the competing perspectives and to propose a common-ground resolution of the apparent conflict. Resolution of this conflict is critical to the education and future of Ohio's children and to the economic prosperity of our state.

This proposal is addressed to the many parents of Ohio's school children who want their children - our children - to learn about the place of God, morality, and values in this complex world, and also want our children to be literate and educated in the methods of science:

1. teach science - only science - in high school science classes, and
2. teach the history and philosophies of science and the major world religions in a full-year, upper-level, high school humanities class.

How science works

The Ohio Board of Education Science Standards for the Life Sciences, grade 10, Benchmark H, Indicator 23 (L10H23) requires that our children be able to:

" ... Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory. (The intent of this benchmark does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.)"

As Judge Jones observed, it would be more appropriate if this requirement were applied to the theory of gravity and to every other theory in science. Nevertheless, critical analysis of evidence is what scientists do!

Scientists carefully study the methods of their chosen disciplines and produce evidence using those methods. They propose hypotheses that predict new evidence yet to be uncovered. They look for contradictions, breaks in the pattern, and unpredicted features that help refine our understanding of the world. They consider alternate explanations for the evidence and look for empirical support for and against those alternatives. Belief and faith are not required to understand and analyze the evidence, but a grounded and comprehensive education in the scientific method is necessary for this analysis.

There are some additional points regarding the scientific method - in particular with respect to evolutionary biology - that are important:

First, there are literally and figuratively mountains of evidence (facts) supporting the theory of evolution. Here in southwestern Ohio and northern Kentucky, we need look no farther than our own sedimentary rocks to observe Cincinnatian-layer fossils. If you have ever wandered the Little Miami River bed, visited the Caesar Creek overflow spillway, picked up rocks along the I-275 road cuts, or looked at the marvelous Ice Age fossils from the Big Bone Lick peat bog, you have seen - and perhaps held in your hand - a few of the facts of evolution.

Second, the large amount of accumulated evidence does NOT mean that every important question is solved, or that all the evidence for every aspect of evolution has been found. In fact one of the most important things we need to teach the next generation of scientists is that there are some really exciting, new avenues of exploration that have opened up in just the past few years. For example, the field of molecular biology has exploded in advances and opportunities for new and interesting research. The question is: will Ohio be able to produce a new generation of scientists who are prepared to take on the challenges of Governor Taft's Third Frontier? The approval of Issue 1 statewide on November 8th means that Ohio will need scientists to implement the Third Frontier. But will Ohio's schools be able to help supply the scientists?

Third, some of the latest scientific discoveries endorse the theory of evolution. For example, the Human Genome Project provides one of the most important opportunities to refute or limit the theory of evolution since The Origin of Species was first published nearly 150 years ago. This detailed examination of human DNA investigates topics that have only recently been revealed - long after Darwin first published. One finding: the presence of bacterial and even viral genes in our DNA can be seen as evolution in progress. But absolutely nothing has been observed in decoding the human genome that challenges the fundamental evolutionary paradigm. In short, our newly discovered ability to decode our genes could have produced (and could still produce) the evidence necessary to limit or refute the theory of evolution.

Fourth, science works by empirically-based refutation. Science is not won in a debate or popularity contest; the evidence rules. Stephen Hawking reported about Albert Einstein:

" ... unpopularity did not stop him from speaking his mind. His theories came under attack; an anti-Einstein organization was even set up. ... But Einstein was phlegmatic: when a book was published entitled 100 Authors Against Einstein, he retorted, 'If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!'" (Hawking, S.W. 1988. A brief history of time: From the big bang to black holes. New York, Bantam, p.178.)

Fifth, all it takes to limit or even to reject the modern theory of evolution is either:

1. replicable, verifiable evidence that is counter to a prediction made by the theory of evolution, or
2. replicable, verifiable evidence that is not predicted and cannot be explained by the theory of evolution.

Yet, to date no such evidence exists. None. If such evidence were to come to light, The Enquirer would announce the new evidence in 200 point type on the front page, and science would be the stronger for it.

Sixth, we have arrived at the response by science to the proponents of IDC and other forms of Creationism:

1. produce replicable, verifiable evidence that challenges any aspect of the theory of evolution,
2. make that evidence available for evolutionary biologists around the world to examine and test, and
3. if Creationists intend to propose an alternate scientific theory to evolution, make a set of testable, verifiable predictions that are not predicted and cannot be explained by the theory of evolution.

When that day comes, Creationism will become part of science, and the evidence that survives the tests will be included in the high school biology curriculum. Until that day comes, as most recently determined by Judge Jones, all forms of Creationism will remain logical, philosophical, and theological arguments without empirical support, and therefore not science and not suitable for high school biology.

Intelligent Design Creationism and high school biology

The Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC) movement proposes to include logical arguments only - without any empirical evidence - in the high school biology curriculum. For example, proponents of IDC argue that:

1. there are some unexplained phenomena in the long history of evolution that raise questions about how the evolution of certain species took place, or how particular features of organisms could have evolved through natural selection and other processes of nature;
2. further, because:
   1. there is no firm scientific evidence available to completely explain all of these particular unexplained phenomena in full and precise detail; and because
   2. it seems highly improbable that these phenomena could have developed through random mutation and natural selection; and because
   3. the phenomena carry out operations that require all of their parts working together to function in the way that they do; and because
   4. the phenomena give the appearance of mechanical operation or design; and because
   5. there are no other logical alternatives;
3. therefore, these phenomena must have been created by an Intelligent Designer (IDC proponents always discuss the designer in the singular, i.e. God); and therefore
4. the explanation is either evolution or IDC.

This is an argument based on the absence of evidence; another common term is an "argument from ignorance." It is certainly a logical possibility that aliens have visited the Earth in its remote past and made changes in living organisms. It is also logically possible that God performed all the unique and special acts of creation that IDC proponents suggest and that YEC adherents believe.

However, at present there is no scientific evidence regarding alien visitations, and science has absolutely nothing to say about supernatural occurrences. Supernatural phenomena are not available for scientific observation, measurement or test. This is not to say that supernatural phenomena do not exist. Rather, the fact is that science cannot test a miracle. Science requires that there be observable, measurable, testable, and repeatable evidence.

Judge Jones took note of the "contrived dualism" in the IDC proposition - if there is something wrong about evolution, the correct answer must be IDC, only - which he traced to a long history of Creationist arguments against the theory of evolution. This false dichotomy generates a profound misunderstanding of how science works.

Young Earth Creationism and high school biology

The Young Earth Creationist (YEC) literature makes no attempt to disguise religion as mainstream science. Answers in Genesis and its director, Ken Ham, cite the Bible as their supreme authority; the Bible trumps scientific interpretation, end of discussion. Whether one agrees or disagrees, the YEC's have made their religious position unambiguously clear. The religious and philosophical perspective represented by the YEC's has a long history and should be included in a high school humanities course.

Teach the controversy

Proponents of IDC argue that our public schools should "teach the controversy," (e.g., Meyer, S.C. 2002. 'Teach the controversy' on origins. Cincinnati Enquirer. Saturday, March 30, 2002. p. D7.). Further, the recent remarks of President Bush, Governor Taft, and Senator Frist support this position. But as subsequently refined by Science Advisor Marburger, the President was addressing the social context in which the scientific theory of evolution is taught. Former President Carter clearly recognizes the controversy as a religious issue. And Judge Jones noted that the "teach the controversy" approach is a common Creationist tactic, first used long before the concept of Intelligent Design was promulgated.

There is indeed a controversy regarding the Ohio public school curriculum. The only thing that the IDC advocates have gotten wrong - and President Carter, Science Advisor Marburger, and Judge Jones have clarified - is where the controversy exists. There is no controversy about the theory and facts of evolution in science. The controversy is elsewhere.

The controversy concerns the meanings of: 1) Intelligent Design Creationism, 2) Young-Earth Creationism, 3) Theistic Evolution, and 4) other philosophical and religious perspectives. These are the controversial topics to which our children should be exposed in a high school humanities class. For example, recently elected members of the Dover (PA.) Area School Board have stated that they may implement a humanities or philosophy class to encourage high school students to learn more about this controversy.

The history and philosophies of science and religion

Concluding his Origin of Species, Darwin wrote:

" . . . from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." (Darwin, C. 2004. The origin of species. 6ed. Originally published 1872. Edison, NJ., Castle Books. pp. 669-670.)

The belief that God created human beings through the mechanism of evolution is the substance of Darwin's statement. Many scientists today describe their professional careers as an application of the best available science and human reason to better understand and appreciate God's Creation. Further, religion and religious beliefs have an important historic place in education, for example the lifework of Jesuit acolyte St. Francis Xavier for whom our Xavier University was named. And many of the world's religions view evolutionary processes as part of God's method of creation. In Ohio, 84% of our college science professors stated that the theory of evolution is consistent with a belief in God (9% against, 7% not sure; University of Cincinnati and Case Western Reserve University, Ohio Poll, September, 2002).

Science teaches a method of analysis and understanding of how the world works; religion teaches about why the world exists and what purposes we humans may serve in this marvelous creation. This distinction between science and religion is immensely valuable in a number of ways:

1. science promotes a systematic analysis of observable, natural phenomena; our children learn to examine evidence critically and skeptically, to think about new problems in nature, and to search for new evidence.
2. science records the observable evidence as a representation of the real world - some scholars view this approach as a philosophy, others as an assumption inherent in the scientific method - either way the recorded observations are always subject to new observations and future challenges.
3. science demands critical analysis, and data-based critical analysis is the process that has driven scientific consensus for such theories as evolution. Ohio's science standards focus instruction in critical analysis exclusively on evolution. There are many examples by which this concept can be clearly communicated (e.g the critical analysis of the germ theory of disease). This exclusive focus on critical analysis of evolution is unfortunate and unnecessarily limiting.
4. science is also extremely limited by its methods; science has no morality, no ethics, and no value system whatsoever; science is neither a believer nor a disbeliever; our children must learn that just because science and technology can make some accomplishment possible does not mean that the new accomplishment is good (or bad).
5. religious values, morality, and ethics have a much longer history that is completely beyond the scope of science; many (but not all) of these values in the modern-day United States derive from the Judeo-Christian traditions of the Middle East and western Europe.
6. as Ohioans become more aware and tolerant of our citizens' racial and ethnic diversity, perhaps we will also come to value the similarities as well as the differences of the religious and cultural perspectives among our residents.
7. the core beliefs of the world's religious systems may have important differences, but they also share very important similarities; it is critical that our children learn to appreciate these similar values.
8. from a very practical point of view, Ohio needs to train a new generation of well-educated and ethical scientists; the quality of the methodological training will be determined in the science classes; the ethical strengths will be learned in our children's homes, religious institutions, communities, and possibly even in humanities classes in high school.

Identifying the common ground

First, Theistic Evolution - the belief that God used evolutionary processes to create life on Earth - is one portion of common ground between science and religion. Many of the major world religions describe evolution as God's method of creation (National Center for Science Education, Statements from Religious Organizations., http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7445_statements_from_religious_org_12_19_2002.asp).

Some Young Earth and Intelligent Design Creationists assert that a belief in evolution means that one must be an atheist. However, by maintaining that accepting evolution equates to a rejection of God, Creationists consign to science a power and authority over belief that it does not and never will have.

Second, science needs smart, educated, and curious researchers to explore new avenues of inquiry. Science depends on its researchers to be ethical human beings who are aware of the social implications of the research they perform. Science cannot teach or impose values or morality; it must rely on the society in which the research is conducted to use the results of the scientific research to good purposes, and not for evil. Thus, one of the more important reasons to teach the history and philosophies of science and religion in a high school humanities class is to produce the best scientists; good science requires it.

Third, Creationists object to the theory of evolution most of all because they believe that this scientific theory will corrupt the morality and values of Ohio's school children. Further, it is not enough for scientists to dismiss this fear as unfounded. Rather, all Ohio parents should join together to make certain that our children receive the best possible high school education in the history and philosophies of morality, ethics and human values. Public school cannot promote one particular set of religious beliefs, but a good curriculum can compare various philosophical perspectives, and produce graduates who are educated in ethics and morality.

Fourth, a narrow majority (54%) of Ohioans expressed the opinion that "the concept of Intelligent Design" is "basically a religious explanation of human origins," (Ohio Poll, September, 2002). Another 30% described ID as valid science or a mixture of religion and science, (17% not sure). The precise wording of these survey questions is critical. The most important observation regarding beliefs of Ohio adults was not measured in this particular poll: the vast majority of Ohioans believe in God the Creator - in some form or fashion.

The process of finding our common ground is driven by an important and complex question: how do we modify the public school curriculum to expose our children to the highest values of ethics and morality that are advocated by the major religions of the world, without also promoting a particular religious viewpoint or belief? Yet, this is the challenge that we must address.

The controversy so prominently described by the proponents of IDC is actually a controversy of philosophy and religion (and a bit of plain, old-fashioned politics). Let's recognize this controversy, its roots, and its importance for our children. And let's address the controversy directly. Let's not confuse philosophy and religion, with science.

Conclusion

• teach science - only science - in high school science classes, and
• teach the history and philosophies of science and religion in high school humanities.

If and when believers in an Intelligent Designer (or any other idea that questions evolution) come up with any, replicable, verifiable, empirical evidence, that evidence most certainly should be considered for the Ohio high school biology curriculum. However, as Judge Jones ruled in Kitzmiller v. DASD, until the day that Creationists produce the scientific evidence, Creationism has no place in high school science class. In the meantime, let's acknowledge the genuine controversy in a humanities class.

Selected Readings

Brauer, M.J., Forrest, B., and Gey, S.G. (2005). Is it science yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution. Washington University Law Quarterly. v.83, no.1., pp.1-149.

Forrest, B., and Gross, P.R. (2004). Creationism's Trojan Horse: The wedge of Intelligent Design. New York, Oxford University Press.

Gould, S.J. (1999). Rocks of ages: Science and religion in the fullness of life. New York, Library of Contemporary Thought.

Heath, R.T. (2004). Pirouetting pigs and the charade of junk science. Ohio Academy of Science Presidential Address, April, 2004. (Available at: http://www.ohiosci.org/PirouettingPigsJunkScience.pdf).

Hoppe, R. B. (2004). Introduction to multiple designers theory. The Panda's Thumb. (http://www.pandasthumb.org/). Posted September 23, 2004. (Available at: http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000509.html).

Jones, John E., III, United States District Judge. (2005). Memorandum opinion, in The United States District Court For The Middle District of Pennsylvania, Tammy Kitzmiller, e al., Plaintiffs, v., Dover Area School District, et al., Defendants. Case No. 04cv2688. December 20, 2005. (Available at: http://coop.www.uscourts.gov/pamd/kitzmiller_342.pdf).

Mayr, E. (2001). What evolution is. New York. Basic Books.

Miller, K. B., ed. (2003). Perspectives on an evolving creation. Grand Rapids, MI., William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Miller, K. R. (1999). Finding Darwin's God: A scientists search for common ground between God and evolution. New York, Harper Collins Publishers, Inc.

National Academy of Sciences. (1999). Science and Creationism: A view from the National Academy of Sciences. 2ed. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press. (Available at: http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/).

The Ohio Academy of Science (2004). What is science? April, 2004. (Available at: http://www.ohiosci.org/Whatisscience.pdf).

Scott, E.C., (2004). Evolution vs. Creationism: An introduction. Westport, Conn., Greenwood Press.

Internet Resources

Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics. Creation Museum, 2800 Bullittsburg Church Rd., Petersburg, KY. 41080. (Available at: http://www.answersingenesis.org).

Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture. [Intelligent Design Creationism advocacy.] (Available at: http://www.discovery.org/csc/).

Intelligent Design Network of Ohio (IDnet Ohio). [Intelligent Design Creationism advocacy in Ohio.] (Available at: http://ohio.intelligentdesignnetwork.us/)

National Center for Science Education. (Available at: http://www.ncseweb.org/).

The Ohio Academy of Science. (Available at: http://www.ohiosci.org).

Ohio Citizens for Science. (Available at: http://www.ohioscience.org).

Ohio State Board of Education. Ohio Department of Education Building. 25 S. Front St.,Ê7th Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4183. 1-877-644-6338. (Available at: http://www.ode.state.oh.us/board/).

The Panda's Thumb. (Available at: http://www.pandasthumb.org/).

Science Excellence for All Ohioans (SEAO). [Intelligent Design Creationism advocacy in Ohio.] (Available at: http://www.sciohio.org).

University of California, Berkeley. Museum of Paleontology. (Available at: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/). See especially: "Understanding Evolution." (Available at: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php).

Note: Excerpts from this essay were published in the Cincinnati Enquirer, p. E4, January 29, 2006.

Disclaimer

The American Society for Microbiology, the Ohio Academy of Science, the Ohio Citizens for Science, and the employers of the authors make no endorsements or representations about the opinions expressed in this essay. The opinions in this essay are solely those of the authors.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the very helpful ideas, suggestions, and recommendations on early versions of this essay from: Rabbi Robert Barr, Loveland, OH., Dr. Wes Elsberry, Oakland, CA., Prof. Barbara Forrest, Hammond, LA., Dr. Mike Holloway, Columbus, OH., Dr. Richard Hoppe, Gambier, OH., Prof. Brian McEnnis, Marion, OH., Prof. Jeff McKee, Columbus, OH., Prof. Ken Miller, Providence, RI., Prof. Patricia Princehouse, Cleveland, OH., Prof. Steve Rissing, Columbus, OH., and Dr. Chris Sofge, Cincinnati. Any errors or misstatements are solely those of the authors.

Authors

Ted Scharf, Ph.D., is a research psychologist and social science methodologist; he is a resident of Clifton and a member of Ohio Citizens for Science: www.ohioscience.org.

Phil Geis, Ph.D., is a microbiologist, Vice president of the Ohio Branch American Society for Microbiology, and a trustee of the Ohio Academy of Science; he lives in Loveland.