Before Alaska and Hawaii achieved statehood in 1959, Kansas was the geographic center of the United States—an appropriate analogy, as it seems to serve as the epicenter of the ongoing debate about the separation of church and state in schools. On October 27, 2005, the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association released a joint statement regarding the Kansas Science Education Standards (KSES). The statement was meant to create an end to the ongoing debate about creationism and intelligent design, and the teaching of the ideologies in the classroom. It confirms that the KSES “deleted text defining science as a search for natural explanations of observable phenomena, blurring the line between scientific and other ways of understanding.” In an attempt to defend the teaching of evolution, the statement goes on to reprimand, “emphasizing controversy in the theory of evolution—when in fact all modern theories of science are continually tested and verified—and distorting the definition of science” as “inconsistent with our Standards and a disservice to the students of Kansas.”
It was this very debate that divided Dover, Pennsylvania, a once-sleepy town of just 1,800 whose troubles seem to be benchmarked by the publication in 2004 of a new pro–intelligent design (ID) curriculum by William Buckingham, the controversial curriculum committee chair. This launched a national frenzy of debate and ripped apart the town and its educational system. In September 2005, in Kitzmiller v. Dover, 11 parents sued the Dover Area School District over a pro–intelligent design disclaimer the school board required to be read when evolution was taught. A judge ruled that the Dover mandate was unconstitutional, and in the November 2005 school board election, 8 of the 9 ID supporters were voted out (the ninth was not up for reelection at that time). The battle left Dover infamous.
Eric Greiner, who has been teaching biology in the Pennsylvania public school system for six years, is a practicing Christian, and does not believe in human evolution. “I do not believe that our bodies have evolved to what they are today by chance or random mutations. The human body is too intricate and each system perfectly enhances our ability to perform as a whole. There has to be something bigger, and I believe God is what made it possible and perfect.” In the classroom, Eric rarely deals with human evolution, and therefore doesn’t feel the conflict between his teachings and his personal beliefs, but if a student questions them, he lets them know they’re free to choose. “Every now and then, I have a student that will bring up religion and evolution. I would reiterate that this is what scientists believe and that they don’t have to agree with them and that, not to get into detail, but there are things that I don’t believe, and that it’s OK for them not to agree with it either.”
The crux of the issue lies in the distinction between intelligent design and creationism, and whether or not there’s a difference between the two. For some, creationism is the belief that God created the universe and all things in it. Intelligent design, by slight contrast, does not claim that the universe is God’s work specifically but asserts that it materialized from a purposeful (and not random) design by an intelligent being. According to Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), intelligent design’s “vagueness” serves an insidious double duty: “First, by not taking a stand on issues that divide creationists, the intelligent design movement hopes to maintain a big tent under which creationists of all stripes are welcome to shelter. Second, by not identifying the designer as God, the intelligent design movement sought to immunize the position from constitutional scrutiny: The idea was to purge creationism of its overt religiosity, so that intelligent design could succeed where creation science failed.”
It’s this blurred distinction that caused problems for Dawn Wendzel and Julie Olson, two biology teachers in Michigan’s Gull Lake Community Schools. After it was discovered that Dawn and Julie were teaching evolution side by side with intelligent design, the books they used (including Of Pandas and People, also famous in the Dover case) were pulled from the classrooms. In response, Dawn and Julie approached the Thomas More Law Center, which also represented Dover in Kitzmiller v. Dover, and threatened a lawsuit. According to Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel at Thomas More, Dawn and Julie’s method of presenting the material and asking the students to pick a theory and debate it, based on the evidence, is a method of teaching that’s supported by the judicial concept of academic freedom: that teachers and students have the right to pursue knowledge, wherever it may lead. Richard Ramsey, superintendent of the Gull Lake school district, remembers the case, even though “we haven’t thought about ID in a while . . . not a topic we’d like to revisit, to tell you the truth.” He recounts that Of Pandas and People was actually on a long list of books to be considered for use in the classrooom, though “no one really knew what it was,” and he claims that the administration didn’t purchase the book.
As a result of the controversy, Ramsey’s team conducted a statewide survey of Michigan public schools’ science programs and found not one that thought ID was beneficial in a science class. “Intelligent design is a topic that has value in a social studies or current events class,” Ramsey says. “Students benefit from having conversations about controversial topics, but I do not believe that intelligent design belongs in a science class as an alternative to evolution.” Dawn and Julie refused repeated requests to be interviewed for this story. According to Ramsey, Julie accepted an early buyout, and will no longer be teaching in the Gull Lake school system; Dawn still teaches there.
