The Evolution Debate

A courtroom debate on evolution is taking place in Topeka, Kansas, where the Board of Education is reexamining the controversy over what public school students should be taught about the origins of life. At stake is whether or not students will be required to learn critiques of evolutionary theory, and Kansas is not alone. Challenges are underway in nearly 20 states on matters from classroom teaching to high school textbooks. Why has this long-standing debate recently been revived? What practical effects will this have on classroom curriculum? Is there a scientific controversy over modern Darwinian theory?

Washington Post staff writer Peter Slevin was online to answer your questions on the current debate about creationism and evolution in public schools.

A transcript follows.

____________________

Peter Slevin: Hello from Topeka, Kan., where a conservative subcommittee of the Kansas Board of Education has begun its second day of public hearings on the state's science standards. There are many pointed questions already, dominated by comments from readers who are disturbed that Kansas would consider changing its standards.

Much to discuss. Let's get started.

_______________________

Centreville, Va.: Why are they even debating this? Evolution is MUTE on origins of life! It merely describes the progression and change in forms of life over time, nothing more. For origins, you are out of the realm of evolution entirely and are instead dealing with biology, geology, planetary science, etc.

One of the criteria for science programs is the fact that any material taught must be commonly accepted by the majority of the scientific community and be published in peer-reviewed journals. Science is not democracy. It is not about "reasonable doubt". It is about finding theories that best fit the observations and data and can be repeated and verified by others. This also includes the possibility of the theory being falsified. ID fails this requirement and thus is not science. On its face, ID fails to measure up to every requirement of a scientific theory. People get hung up on the word "theory" while failing to understand its meaning in a scientific context. A truly sad reflection on the state of education at times that the basic foundations of science are unknown or misunderstood.

I would politely tell the ID folks to go away and come back when their ideas have gained sufficient traction in the academic community to be accepted as a reasonable theory. And even if they do, evolution should still be taught. As stated, evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life.

Peter Levin: Your point is at the heart of the argument being made by the evolution forces in Topeka and around the country. Their opponents are making much at the hearings of the lack of answers about how life began, something the scientists concede.

The idea of presenting persuasive science to peer-reviewed journals is exactly what such bodies as the Kansas Academy of Science proposes.

_______________________

Staunton, Va.: So much attention is given to "Intelligent design" and the push by proponents to get it into science classes--why? Is it really science? If it is not science, but more about "beliefs" or even "disputes" why is it not proposed for another class about, say, world views or belief systems? How is Intelligent Design any more poised than, say, Astrology, or the myths of natives, to be a counter explanation within a scientific setting?

Peter Slevin: One reason intelligent design is getting so much attention in the mainstream media, including science and general interest magazines is the number and array of challenges to teaching standards its proponents are making around the country.

As I pointed out in a story in Thursday's Post, scientists who first thought they could dismiss the theory have discovered that they cannot afford to ignore it.

_______________________

Springfield, Va.: I think the only reason people reject evolution is because what they 'know' about it amounts to barbershop gossip.

Peter Slevin: Scientists and staff members of trade organizations say something similar. A number of scientists, speaking ruefully about opinion polls and the current discussion, have told me they should do a better job of educating students and the general public alike.

_______________________

Leland, Ill.: Is this being debated in a true court of law or before the State School BOARD?

Peter Slevin: Three members of the Kansas school board are presiding in what they have described as an attempt to air the "debate" about evolutionary theory. All three are on the record as saying that they doubt evolution's explanatory power.

They made their views clear yesterday, as well, with their warm responses to the witnesses who testified in favor of changing the science curriculum.

_______________________

Takoma Park, Md.: Peter, what does the situation there look like? Who is testifying? Who ISN'T there? Do you get a sense of the way the board is receiving criticism of the inclusion of intelligent design?

Peter Slevin: The hearings are being held in an auditorium across from the state capitol. Advocates for the two sides sit at tables on a stage, while each witness stands at a microphone below. The three board members sit together at a nearby table. A few dozen people were in the audience this morning, with maybe 8 or 10 camera people.

The 20-plus witnesses were organized by proponents of intelligent design. They have various degrees of scientific expertise.

The evolution supporters, who argues that changing the standards would mean diluting science education, is boycotting the hearings and will call no witnesses. But they do have a lawyer on stage who is cross-examining the witnesses.

_______________________

Iola, Kan.: I think it is extremely important for the rest of America to understand that in fact there is NO DEBATE ongoing in Kansas about evolution. The hearings prompted by the right wing fundamentalists of the Kansas Board of Education are strictly for the purpose of demonstrating the right wings beliefs in creationism. ALL of the scientific community in Kansas is boycotting these "hearings". These "hearings" need to be revealed for what they are, a theological theater for the fundamentalist religious right wing faction of the Republican party. I can assure you that overwhelmingly most Kansas (including most Republicans) are embarrassed by this attempt to discredit proven scientific fact. I would encourage you to examine the editorial pages of virtually every newspaper in Kansas, you will find that in addition to Kansas newspapers largely reflecting Republican viewpoints, universally they ALL support the teaching of evolution in the Kansas schools and are urging the State Board of Education to dismiss any attempt to offer "creationism" to our students in any science class. Nearly ALL Kansans are rational beings who support the continued teaching of EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE and in fact only a few right wing fundamentalists have "fallen off the turnip wagon", I urge you NOT to paint the majority (whether they be Democrat, Independent or Republican) with the fundamentalist "tar brush" of the religious far right.

Peter Slevin: You're not alone.

I was talking this morning with a Kansan who said she feels so disheartened by the hearings and by the attention being paid. Thinking of the media credentials issued to national papers and broadcast outlets, as well as French and Canadian television, she said Kansans are coming across as rubes.

_______________________

Greensboro, N.C.: In a state like Kansas, agricultural science and technological innovation have been very important to economic growth. Is there any concern among educators that the 'dissing' of science that goes along with the ID debate could hurt the state's potential for steering kids toward science and, by connection, economic prosperity?

Peter Slevin: Yes, that's a big worry, although the opponents argue that Ohio changed its standards and the sky hasn't fallen.

The Kansas legislature agreed to spend $500 million or more to advance bioscience in the next 10 years. Critics of the education debate fear that good scientists won't want to come to the state or educate their children here.

You might check out the comments of Leonard Krishtalka, director of the Natural History Museum at the University of Kansas, in my story from yesterday. I'll see if we can post a link.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com:

In Kansas, A Sharp Debate on Evolution.

_______________________

Annandale, Va.: Doesn't the concept of "Creator" in the intelligent design theory signify religious belief in a higher power (God) which goes against separation of Church and State? As an atheist I would judge this as an attempt to teach religion to my children in public schools, which is unlawful. Wouldn't intelligent design be better off in private religious schools, just like Bible classes?

Peter Slevin: Good question. Those who favor changing the science standards insist that they a) do not advocate teaching intelligent design, because it's not yet a well-supported theory and b) do not propose injecting beliefs about higher powers into the discussion.

Their argument is that evolutionary theory has significant gaps that students should learn about. Those gaps may well leave open the possibility that a higher or supernatural power played a role, but that's as far as the proponents say they intend to go.

Now, a number of critics say that intelligent design itself, by not being explicit,was established as an end-run around the church-state separation requirement.

Lawyers on both sides have said they have that issue very much in mind. You might take a look at the Darby, Penn., case that my colleague Michael Powell wrote about in December.

_______________________

HMS Beagle: If intelligent design is creationism in disguise, are it's proponents providing all possible scenarios, i.e. other religions' versions of ID?

Peter Slevin: Nice dateline.

The short answer: No.

_______________________

Madison, Wis.: What is taught about evolution in other countries? If ID is not a topic of consideration overseas, then it would lead one to suggest that religion is the difference that's making it an issue here in the U.S. This is a religious effort, and not an educational one.

Peter Slevin: I'll respond with a comment I received on March 14, when I last did an on-line discussion about this. I had intended to post it then.

Liverpool, U.K.: I read your article in today's Washington Post with a mixture of disbelief&exasperation. Here in Europe evolution is widely accepted as a scientific fact, historically verified. Unlike the U.S., there is no political party anywhere in Europe which aligns itself with creationism or "intelligent design," it's barely disguised euphemism.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md.: Is there any voter resentment against school board members or are Kansans that docile to religious ideologues?

Peter Slevin: This is not the first time Kansas has gone through this. After the state board removed some references to evolution in 1999, voters reacted by electing a more moderate board in 2001.

The political see-saw went the other way in November, creating at 6-4 conservative majority.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com:

Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens.

_______________________

Leawood, Kan.: Is this a smokescreen? Or is it another attempt to undermine public schools? American citizens are already behind in becoming Ph.Ds in science and mathematics relative to non-citizens. Further, why would world class scientists come to nearby University of Kansas or come to work in the newly built Stowers Institute which was created to study stem cells and ways to treat various cancers?

Peter Slevin: The ultimate goals of the members of the anti-evolution forces vary, I suspect. It's not a homogenous bunch.

I talked earlier this year with Rev. Terry Fox, a Southern Baptist minister in Wichita, who equates evolutionary theory with atheism and liberalism. He sees the defeat of modern Darwinism as a critical battle in the culture wars.

Some players see this as a political wedge issue, while others view it as an intriguing scientific challenge. There is no question but some do see this as a way to "reform" the public schools, seat of bad influences, etc.

_______________________

Bowie, Md.: Are any nationally famous right-wing leaders going to participate -- Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, or anyone like Dole?

Peter Slevin: No, not at the hearings.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: They want to teach kids that "evolutionary theory has significant gaps"? Come ON! -Gravitational- theory probably has significant gaps, if you look hard enough, but it seems to work pretty well for architects. That's how science works - there are gaps, scientists study them, we learn more. Sheesh.

Peter Slevin: Members of Kansas Citizens For Science have been offering just that point to all who would listen, adding that they see intelligent design less as a positive theory that offers explanations than one that hinges on chipping away at assumptions, finding omissions and highlighting things that remain unexplained.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Dear Mr. Slevin, I am a full Diploma International Baccalaureate senior, which means I am taking a full course load of IB classes (6), one of which is IB Biology. As I'm sure you know, IB is considered one of the most rigorous high school academic choices, on par with AP courses. My quick point relates to the debate about Intelligent Design. As part of the IB curriculum, we are required to do already exactly what is being proposed by various groups, namely be aware of the theory of Intelligent Design and the lack of scientific evidence for it. There is a short sentence or two that we are required to know, such as "Followers of many religions believe God created life. This is called special creation." In our syllabus we are also supposed to know that this can be called Intelligent Design. As best as I can understand it, it is this bare bones acknowledgement, which various groups are seeking to add to the curriculum. According to your article, "Scientists warn that introducing challenges to evolution in the public school curriculum would weaken education, harm the economy, and, as one paleontologist put it, open Kansas to ridicule as 'the hayseed state.'" I fail to see how such a simple addition would add such dire consequences to any teaching of evolution, particularly as many of the teachers have the ability to direct the teaching and its pace. IB Biology is a very rigorous and demanding course for which it is possible to receive college credit for certain scores on a final exam, yet it includes a mention (admittedly brief) of intelligent design. Would the sky fall down and the world end, if other courses were similarly updated? I believe that this fact would be useful to the current debate about challenges to evolution.

Peter Slevin: Thanks for sending this along. It's nice to have an example from real life!

_______________________

washingtonpost.com:

Teachers, Scientists Vow to Fight Challenge to Evolution.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: As a scientist in support of evolution; I have worn my favorite t-shirt today: Support the theory of Evolution, 400 billion amphibians can't be wrong!

Peter Slevin: Tie-dyed in the primordial soup, I suppose.

_______________________

Ames, Iowa: I believe in evolution AND I believe God created the universe (even if he started with small, small parts). I don't see the conflict, but then, I'm not a fundamentalist Christian. Why can't the two co-exist?

Peter Slevin: Interestingly, the pro-evolution coalition has been asserting the same point.

They hosted a lecture on the eve of the science hearings by Kansas State University geologist Keith B. Miller, a self-described evangelical Christian. He called it "Ending the 'Warfare' of Science and Faith."

Steve Abrams, the chairman of the Kansas education board, has said "the two worldviews are diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive." Others have said the same.

Miller said creation is "not a past event but a continuing process" and that evolutionary theory is "simply silent on the existence or action of God."

I'm not wise enough to weigh in, but it's food for thought.

_______________________

College Park, Md.: To the IB student: I'm glad to hear that you have a sensitive and yet rigorous approach to the subject, but allowing intelligent design to be discussed in classrooms could make many forms. Most teachers won't approach it as yours have -- they'll see it as an opportunity to inject their personal, religious beliefs into a discussion of science.

Peter Slevin: Passing this along.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: This reminds me of the so-called global warming "debate". The science on the latter has been in consensus for over a decade (the climate change is human-driven). Yet, to create controversy and interest, the media trots out a reliable handful of fringe oil industry shills to stoke the illusion that there is some "debate". This is done under the guise of honoring "balance" - but it's like "balancing" those who know the sun comes up in the east with an equal spokesperson who maintains that it comes up in the west. It just confuses the public.

There is no debate among scientists as to whether evolutionary theory (which, like any scientific framework, is constantly being refined) explains the observations and data to date. None. If people want to cling to their ancient tribal beliefs, that's their business, but don't call it science. Not with my tax dollars.

Peter Slevin: Interesting parallel. As for the news media's role, I'd say this is an example of controversy the media discovered but did not create. There is a real debate underway in Kansas about what 450,000 students will be taught about basic science. I think we'd be wrong not to cover it.

It's important, as you say, to make sure the stories well reflect the state of the science as well as the arguments of those who would change the standards.

_______________________

Peter Slevin: This is part of a very long comment from Albany, NY, that provides some polling data. Other polls have shown, further, that large majorities of Americans believe God created man, or had a helping hand.

Albany, N.Y.: Sorry to be the skunk at this garden party but you of the evolution faith are losing the battle for public opinion. Below is the results of some polling. You'll note that even with all the indoctrination we have received from the evolutionist believers in our school districts, a good number of our society is able to see through the lies and distortions of the evolutionary movement.

In a November 2004 Gallup poll, respondents were asked: "Just your opinion, do you think that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is: a scientific theory that has been well supported by evidence, or just one of many theories and one that has not been well-supported by evidence, or don't you know enough to say?" Only 35% of Americans indicated a scientific theory supported by evidence, whereas 35% indicated that evolution was just one among many theories, and 29% answered they didn't know. A similar result was found when the same question was asked by Gallup in February 2001.

Newsweek presented the question slightly differently in a December 2004 poll. Respondents were asked: "Do you think the scientific theory of evolution is well-supported by evidence and widely accepted within the scientific community, or that it is not well supported by evidence and many scientists have serious doubts about it?" Posed in this way, 45% of respondents indicated that evolution was well supported, compared to 42% who believed that scientists had serious doubts, with 13% answering they didn't know.

_______________________

Louisville, Ky.: So far, I like the tone of this discussion. Reasonable people will agree that evolution is a science (able to be proved/disproved/tested), whereas design is a theory, or a belief system, or a fairy tale -- take your pick. However, given that our standing president has yet to accept evolution as fundamental fact, and that the Scopes trial is being revisited so many years later, are we preparing for a nationwide "debates" over the integrity of evolution?

In another words, do you feel that even having this "discussion" intellectually cheapens us a whole?

Peter Slevin: The intelligent design movement and its allies, I daresay, would be thrilled to have such a debate. And it's something the scientists and educators on the other side would fear, not least for the reason you suggest.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Echoing one poster above, I cannot fathom why this is even up for debate--and I say that as a devout Christian who goes to church and reads the Bible. ID and creationism are NOT SCIENCE. Such teachings belong in Bible study or comparative religion classes--NOT SCIENCE. Science requires proof, and it's not the sort of hold-hands-everyone's-opinion-is-equally-valid discipline. This is exactly the same kind of educational abomination as those madrasahs in Afghanistan where 12-year old boys believe dinosaurs and homo sapiens co-existed. No wonder agnostics and atheists think Christians are all morons--because of this sort of shamefulness. The children who are subjected to this nonsense are being denied admissions at good colleges because they're unprepared. Do we really want a generation of bad scientists running things in 20 years?

Peter Slevin: Some teachers say the pressure -- spoken or otherwise -- not to address evolution is strong in some communities.

I attended a forum at the Plymouth Congregational Church in Lawrence, Kan., two weeks ago where a young science student at KU said he realized something was missing from his Kansas high school science class.

"Once we got to evolution, we completely skipped over it," he said. He ended up getting some books and teaching himself evolutionary theory over the summer.

_______________________

re: Albany's posting: To cite opinion polls of the lay populace is a red herring.

True science has NEVER been subject to opinion polls. It is subject to the evidence and the subsequent consensus (different thing) built up in the scientific community.

If opinion polls were the only thing that mattered, in science or policy, would Brown vs. Board of Education (in Kansas, no less) have ever passed in this country in the 1950s?

Sheesh.

Peter Slevin: Interesting point. I'd add, however, that scientists do say that such polls show what they're up against in fighting was has become more a political battle than a scientific one.

_______________________

Springfield, Va.: Science isn't determined by polls or by faith. Science is determined by evidence and logic which are sorely lacking among those who disbelieve it.

Peter Slevin: Another thought along the same lines.

_______________________

Minneapolis, Minn.: I realize why us "evolutionist believers" (in the words of the poster from Albany) are not actively participating in the Kansas forum - it's kind of a no-win situation (either show up and be labeled as secular heathens who don't believe in the glory of God, or stay silent and try to take the an intellectual higher ground).

But from your standpoint at the proceedings, is this looking like a good idea? With all the press coverage, it almost seems to me as if science is saying "no comment", which can be spun negatively.

Peter Slevin: I spoke yesterday with a Kansas scientist who was wondering just the same thing. He worried after a few hours that the lack of a scientist onstage to challenge the anti-Darwinian witnesses was hurting the cause.

Kansas Citizens For Science leaders, who have called this a "kangaroo court," figured as you have that they couldn't win either way and that their boycott would get some attention.

_______________________

To Albany: Why are you so threatened by science? I'm a devout Christian and I have no problem with evolution (and no, it's not a "faith," it's proven science--creationism and ID are aspects of faith and as such belong in Bible study, not public schools).

Lord, save us from your followers. There are times I'm embarrassed to be called a Christian.

Peter Slevin: One thing that paleontologist Leonard Krishtalka said in Lawrence last month was that his side needed to mobilize two groups, apart from scientists: The business community and what he called "the thinking, rational clergy."

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: But the Newsweek poll doesn't support the creationist viewpoint, it just shows that most people aren't aware of the fact that evolution is widely accepted among the scientific community.

Peter Slevin: More on Albany's comment.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md. : Albany's odd comments about indoctrination aside, the poll numbers apparently show that most of the country already understands that evolution doesn't answer all questions. In fact, most people don't seem to understand that evolution is unquestioned by the scientific community. We hardly need to inject more doubt because the lay community already seems very much misled regarding how the experts (scientists) view evolution.

Peter Slevin: Still more in response to Albany.

_______________________

Peter Slevin: We've run out of time, but thanks to one and all for weighing in.

_______________________

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.