USA TODAY
'Intelligent design' backers lose in Pennsylvania
By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY Thu Nov 10, 7:17 AM ET
The court verdict in a landmark lawsuit on "intelligent design" is weeks
away, but voters in Dover, Pa., delivered their judgment this week by
sweeping out eight of nine school board members who decided that ninth-
grade science students must be told the concept is an alternative to
evolution.
The board stirred controversy by requiring a one-minute classroom statement
about the idea that parts of life and the universe are so complex that an
intelligent designer best explains them. That put Dover at the center of a
national argument over whether intelligent design is science or religion.
(Related item: Kansas schools can teach 'intelligent design')
All nine board members backed the classroom statement, but only eight were
up for re-election. They all lost to challengers who argued that the
discussion doesn't belong in science class.
School districts and legislatures across the country are weighing policies
that raise doubts about evolution and in some cases mandate the teaching of
intelligent design. Most of the efforts have died in court or legislative
committee, but a supportive ruling in the Dover federal court case could
brighten their prospects.
Proponents say the Dover board requirement encourages critical thinking;
opponents say it promotes a religious viewpoint, because the designer has
to be God.
Federal Judge John Jones says he'll rule by early January on whether the
requirement violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
Eric Rothschild, attorney for the 11 parents who challenged the board's
policy, says the court case remains important, despite the election. "Other
state and local school boards are watching this, some with a very strong
intention to teach intelligent design."
Attorney Richard Thompson, who represents the ousted board members in the
lawsuit, says the election was not a setback. "This is an idea whose time
has come. And the vagaries of the political landscape in particular
localities are not going to stop the progress." Thompson is president of
the Thomas More Law Center, which says its mission is to defend "the
religious freedom of Christians."
The election results in Pennsylvania came the same day the Kansas state
school board adopted statewide science standards that cast doubt on
evolution. Critics such as the National Center on Science Education, a non-
profit group that defends evolution, say the standards open the door to
teaching intelligent design.
The six-week Dover trial, which ended Friday, kept intelligent design on
local voters' minds as the election approached. Jim Cashman, 51, a board
member who lost, says the trial distorted the school board's intent. "There
was a lot of stretching going on to make it seem like there was any
religion involved with it," he says. "It's a one-minute statement with
nothing religious in it. But the perception of the voters is what counts."
The eight new school board members ran on a pledge to "discuss intelligent
design in the proper forum." They define that as philosophy or religion
classes.
Patricia Dapp, 56, a health services administrator elected to the board,
says her slate won some votes from people who consider the subject
inappropriate for science class and from others unhappy that the board
adopted the policy even though it was told it would trigger a potentially
expensive lawsuit.
"It's restored my faith in the community," she says of the election. "They
wanted a change. They definitely will get a change."
Dapp says the new board will weigh the judge's ruling when it starts
meeting in January. "We want to have all the information and all the facts
in front of us before we act," she says.
The politics of intelligent design are changeable, hinging largely on who
is paying attention to races at the bottom of the ballot. In Kansas, for
example, intelligent-design supporters had a majority on the state school
board in 1998, lost it in 2002 and recaptured it in 2004.
Caroline McKnight, director of Kansas' non-partisan Mainstream Coalition,
says that's because "people took for granted that ... we'd already fought
this battle." The lesson for both sides: "You can't ever take for granted
who's in that last slot on your ballot."
.
|
