Intelligent Design: Curricular or Religious Issue?
Friday, April 7, 2006, 11 a.m. (Central Time). Guest expert: Naomi Gittins, senior staff attorney, NSBA, Alexandria, Va. Schools face increasing attempts to inject the biblical perspective on the origins of life into the classroom. Can creationism be taught as an alternative to evolution in science class? In a philosophy or world religion course? Is it a student's right to know? A matter of teacher free speech? Prohibited by the establishment clause? In responding to these attempts, schools must understand the legal, social, educational and political implications of the decisions they make on this hot button issue. Join this online discussion about the controversies schools are confronting and how they can handle this issue in an educationally sound and legally responsible manner.
Naomi Gittins writes:
Welcome to our online discussion of intelligent design. As you know, this is a controversial and sensitive issue that public schools must deal with. We hope this discussion will be enlightening and also civil and respectful. So let's get started.
A school district administrator from La Grande, Oregon asks:
When presented as an alternative theory I do not see a problem with "Intelligent Design." I remain baffled by those who oppose student exposure to opposing views, even when discussing science.
Naomi Gittins writes:
Some questions to ask yourself that might help is why the alternative theory is being presented. Was the decision based on a desire to enhance students' education and understanding of the origins of life or was it based on a desire to promote a particular religious view about how life began. Another important question to ask is how is the alternative theory being presented. Is it being presented in the same way as other scientific theories are presented or is it being taught as the one and only possible explanation without criticism or analysis.
Naomi Gittins writes:
For example, does the teacher say we know that this explanation for the origin of life is true because it comes from the Bible or does he teach students how to see the strengths and weaknesses of each theory through the scientific method?
A school board member from Plum Borough asks:
How can this issue be handled in regards to academic freedom? Does this concept apply in a public high school where students are considered to be a captive audience?
A school board member from Pittsburgh,PA asks:
How does the issue of academic freedom apply to a public high school in terms of teaching intelligent design vs., or in conjunction, with evolution?
Naomi Gittins writes:
This is a good question. The concept of academic freedom, which means a teacher is free to teach a subject in the manner she chooses, does not really apply in the elementary and secondary context. Courts have made it very clear that school boards set the curriculum and have the authority to pick the materials and teaching methods to meet the established curricular goals. When a teacher is "on the job", particularly in front of her students, school boards can regulate what she says.
Naomi Gittins writes:
This means teachers do not have a First Amendment free speech right to teach or not teach evolution or intelligent design. They are bound by the curricular decisions of the board and they can be disciplined if they choose not to comply.
A school board member from Berkley, MI asks:
I went to a talk on this subject recently. The real question is how did the energy of the beginning of the universe translate into minds. This is a subject for religious discourse, not for public schools. Evolution is a theory, constantly being tested; intelligent design is a belief.
Naomi Gittins writes:
This is a difficult nut to crack. As I'm sure you're aware there are many who would agree with you and there are also many who would not. At this point in time most of the scientific community would support what you say. But there are others who say that intelligent design is in fact science and that new scientific ideas are always resisted in the beginning by those who are invested in the currently accepted theory.
Naomi Gittins writes:
It is important for school boards to examine the issue carefully and ensure that they are making decisions that are in the best educational interest of their students. That is a more difficult thing with intelligent design when there is such disagreement over whether it is science or religion.
An individual from Virginia asks:
Why is it that the issue is so often arranged like this: Those who seek to politicize this issue are those nutty Christians, not those calm, reasoned, secularists who NEVER try to politicize public education? C'mon. The larger issue is that this behavior goes on among those on ALL sides of the political spectrum. To single out those who believe in creationism in this manner is so typical. The agenda of the secularists is just as nutty in some respects. We should ALL oppose the politicization of public education. Thoughts?
Naomi Gittins writes:
You make a good point. It doesn't really help to present the issue in extreme terms and to characterize a particular viewpoint in a negative way. I'm sure you realize that this happens because people's very core beliefs are at issue and they want to protect them at all costs. A school board should strive to rise above personal and political agendas and pressures from both sides.
Naomi Gittins writes:
Again, boards must listen to all sides, carefully review the materials and information provided by experts and make decisions for educationally sound reasons, not personal beliefs or political pressure.
A parent from Little Rock, AR. asks:
Student should be exposed to varying viewpoints and given an opportunity to explore the differences. If we are going to discuss "Intelligent Design", then we should permit the students to make informed and intelligent decisions.
Naomi Gittins writes:
Some surveys show that about two-thirds of Americans agree with you that students should learn about alternative theories to evolution. Unfortunately, what schools should teach students about the origins of life has become so controversial that many science teachers (some reports says as many as 50%) don't teach anything about this.
Naomi Gittins writes:
They choose to teach nothing or only teach very little about evolution or alternative theories because they are afraid of parental complaints. In my view, high school students who have been taught nothing or very little about this subject have a significant gap in their basic scientific knowledge.
A public information officer from Chicago, Ill. asks:
Would it be acceptable to teach intelligent design in another class besides science?
Naomi Gittins writes:
That is a compromise position that some boards have considered to avoid the issue of whether intelligent design is science or religious belief. If the board chooses this route it still has to ensure that the decision is not based on a desire to inject the teaching of religion into the curriculum. It also is important to consider how to implement this decision.
Naomi Gittins writes:
For example, it might be possible to discuss intelligent design in a philosophy class that considers various approaches to answering the questions about the origins of life. It probably wouldn't work if intelligent design was the only approach discussed in a philosophy class and the materials used consisted of the Bibles and materials developed by religious organizations promoting i.d. as the one and only truth.
A school district administrator from Kansas asks:
What should a board do if the state requires teaching intelligent design, but the school board thinks that's unconstitutional?
Naomi Gittins writes:
That does put the board in a very difficult position because the state generally has the power to set the standards of learning. For example, the state may say knowledge of intelligent design is one of the things students must know to pass a standardized test. To ignore that standard might create problems for the district in making AYP under the No Child Left Behind Act.
Naomi Gittins writes:
If the board feels strongly that teaching intelligent design would violate the Establishment Clause, it should definitely consult with its school board attorney and get an opinion before making any decision about whether to comply or not. Obviously, whatever route the board chooses, it could face a legal challenge or consequences--either for non-compliance or for teaching i.d. The fact it's a state requirement wouldn't prevent disgruntled parents or others from suing.
Naomi Gittins writes:
That's the last of our questions. Thank you very much for joining this discussion. I hope it has been helpful to hear all sides.
BoardBuzz Feed
