Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Academic Freedom

"Give me liberty to know to think, to believe, and to utter freely according to conscience, above all other liberties." John Milton

Momentarily, my thoughts went to a different land, a land where discussions are open for critical thinking on the teaching of creationism or intelligent design as well as the teaching of evolution in the classroom.

Yes, let's go there for today's contemplation... as a change of pace from all the readings that we've had on racial and gender inequalities of the past eras. Let's take the Scopes Trial and the Dover Trial, for examples, in our contemplative thought on academic freedom. There were different issues involved in both the Scopes Trial of July, 1925 and the Dover Trial of September, 2005, which both focused on the question of teaching evolution in public schools in the United States.

Let us start with a little history of our country when the first pilgrims came here to escape religious persecution. As far as we can remember religion has always played an important role in who we are as a people. America has recognized the contribution of faith. But it is important to note that America does not impose any one religion; instead, all religions are welcome. That is what religious tolerance is about. In America, we do not mandate any prayer; we welcome all prayers and we respect every creed. We honor the diversity of our country. We respect the deep convictions of our people – this is the tradition of the United States of America. This is what makes us Americans.

Religion has provided hope and inspiration to the lives of countless Americans. We are blessed for all the fine works of love and peace and hope. America is a better place because of the diversity in religions and for the existence of the doctrine of separation of church and state. The latter is a very important concept, especially in the academic setting where the scientific curricula require scientific research. Religious dogma can get in the way of independent thinking. To be true to our beliefs, we need freedom. Our religious freedom is a cornerstone of our great nation.

When I think of how a good and decent society should look, I imagine one in which the government does not hinder faith but rather recognizes what people of faith do to make our communities stronger, to make our schools stronger with a curriculum that is more viable, and to make our families stronger as well. Our families and our future will be ready to embrace the challenges ahead not just in education but in many facets of the American life. By saying this, I would like to add that we did not come this far if not for the struggles and experiences of some of our country’s freedom fighters, such as John Thomas Scopes, whose personal conviction reflects that we, too, can fight for our freedom. He did this in the Scopes Trial.

The Scopes Trial was about removing the teaching of evolution because it went against the religious tenets of the powerful lawmakers of that time. As a result of the discussions around the trial, the view in the land has been that Darwin's concepts should be taught in science classrooms. It is then important to define what science is since we are dealing with developing scientific minds and inquisitiveness for our young people who will be learning scientific theories and methods. “Science, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, is “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. It is the methodological activity, discipline, or study, a knowledge, especially that which is gained through experience, a body of regular or methodical observations or propositions...”

In the Scopes Trial, the debate over a scientific and educational matter was so passionate on both sides. Why was this so? Well, you see, back then, and until our times in the new millennium, some people believe in reason. Some people believe in blind faith to their religion. Some people don’t think for themselves – they wait for their religious leaders to tell them what to believe in. If people agree that evolution should be taught in the classroom, they are considered atheists. In fact, anyone for that matter, who believes that evolution should be the science curriculum in a science class, no matter how devout a Christian he or she maybe, is considered an atheist. Aside from this, there are other issues that were also involved in this Scopes Trial. For one thing, which is the one ethical issue that I am actually going to reflect on, is the academic freedom in the classrooms.

It is important to know and would prove helpful what issues were at stake for both the defense and the prosecution. For John Thomas Scopes, the high school science teacher who was contrived in this occurrence, his idea was purely academic freedom. Since, basically, his conviction was to open up the classroom for the teaching of science and not merely evolution, not just some curriculum, he was fighting for academic freedom in general.

On the prosecution side, what was at stake was that they wanted to stop what they considered a blasphemous doctrine in the classroom. The Scopes Trial was fundamentally an argument over democracy and the rule of the majority. In my opinion, if one believes in democracy, then the state should not mandate their religious beliefs to be taught in the classroom. Dictatorship does not allow choices!

In saying this, I definitely do not agree with William Jennings Bryan that “the hand that writes the check rules the schools.” No, I do not believe that this is right. It may be true to some extent or within limits. But, then, those limits stop when it comes to teaching religion in school. As a truism, the School Board disburses and controls the funds and has a lot to say on what is supposed to be taught in the school. What I am saying is that it should be within the limits of the First Amendment of our Constitution.

Watching the film of the Scopes Trial made me ponder over the support of the residents in Dayton, Tennessee, of the Butler Law. I honestly do not think that it was compatible with the Dayton residents’ plan or objective of having a town with a little economic growth. I realize that since this was a widely-covered trial, and it brought cash to the little unpopular town of Dayton. The influx of media, mostly the print journalists and the others who have an interest in this specific trial, they were able to put their little place on the map with a bit of economic push to it. But in my mind, this is the wrong way to do it. They can make their town know in some other ways without stifling intellectual growth of the academe.

On the same instance, another trial occurred in the history of the United States’ educational system—the Dover Trial of 2005. The Dover Trial legally proved that Creationism and Intelligent Design were one and the same. Creationism was brought into the classroom in the guise of Intelligent Design. The ruling judge saw right through the proposed creationism theory under a new and different name and declared Intelligent Design as not being a true science and should not be taught in the classroom. The judge also ruled that the school board knew that Intelligent Design was Creationism and was trying to illegally introduce it to the students.

I watched the entire blackboard Dover Trial, which was a civil proceeding where a group of parents were suing the Pennsylvania's Middle District School Board to stop them from introducing creationism in the guise of Intelligent Design to the students. On December 20, 2005, Judge Jones issued his decision, ruling that the Dover mandate was unconstitutional, and barring intelligent design from being taught in Pennsylvania's Middle District public school science classrooms. The eight Dover school board members who voted for the intelligent design requirement were all defeated in a November 8, 2005 election by challengers who opposed the teaching of intelligent design in a science class, and the current school board president stated that the board does not intend to appeal the ruling.

In my personal belief, Intelligent Design or Creationism and the teaching of evolution are not incompatible. I have strong Christian beliefs, and I don't think that the Bible tells me not to believe in evolution. But the people who were trying to put Creationism in the classroom have religious motivation. Science is science. Charles Darwin's ideas on the Origins of the Species have been overwhelmingly accepted in the scientific community. I do not think that there is such a big conflict between the Bible and evolution. God started evolution. It was His vehicle for shaping the earth!

The first amendment of our constitution clearly states that there is a distinct separation of church and state in our country. Our government should not be given the authority to dictate the curriculum in schools where they favor one religion over another. That's not what the separation of church and state is about. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

When the government does not intervene or meddle in what is going to be taught in the classroom, then, the teachers can create an open and safe environment where a dynamic learning process can occur. This type of learning environment is conducive to learning and where we can all learn from one another. Students learn a great deal from the teachers, and on the other hand, the teachers can also learn from the students. Most especially in a class with a scientific curriculum, the students should be encouraged to explore ideas and concepts creatively. This creativity can be stifled if fear is present. Throwing teachers in jail, or instilling in their hearts the fear factor of losing their job security does not provide nor encourage a dynamic learning environment.