 |
|
|
Creationism on the March:
'We're not in Kansas Anymore!' |
|
By Bill Berkowitz
In early June, AgapePress, the Christian-based daily news feed, reported that "lawmakers in Pennsylvania have started debating new school science standards which would include allowing students to question the theory of evolution." For a short time, Kansas was singled out as ground zero in the creationism vs. evolution debate. The battle in Kansas came to a head in August 1999, when the Kansas State Board of Education, controlled by a majority insync with the Christian Right's education agenda, adopted standards that removed the teaching of evolution. The creationism-evolution conflict had hit Kansas like an old time twister, threatening to devastate the state's education community as well as the state's reputation. In the late sixties, I went to the University of Kansas in Lawrence. I still have many friends there and they were offended and embarrassed by the glare of the national spotlight -- especially those with children in the Kansas public schools. Even Republican Gov. Bill Graves called the 1999 vote an outrage. Kansas, long the home of innumerable Wizard of OZ-type quotes such as the immortal "we're not in Kansas anymore," now became the butt of jokes for nighttime television talk-show hosts. Dave Seaton, in The Winfield [Kansas] Courier, recently wrote that the campaign in behalf of creationism was an well-orchestrated effort by a right-wing-controlled School Board. They successfully implemented "standards [that] devalued the theory of evolution at every opportunity, denied one species could turn into another and left out the big bang theory that did not conform to the book of Genesis in the Christian Bible." But the right's victory was short-lived. In August 2000, voters rejected two of the biggest backers of creationism in the Republican primary. A third member resigned, thus giving the new Board a 7-3 majority in favor of adopting a new set of standards. In March of this year, these new standards restored the teaching of the theory of evolution to statewide education standards. In Kansas, Seaton points out; the creationists "had gone too far." They failed "because they did not reckon on the commitment of Kansans to the value of education." The Institute for Creation Research
In his May 2001 letter to constituents, ICR's president John D. Morris writes that the "desperate need for creation evangelism becomes clearer ever day. By creation evangelism I mean that through restoring the creation doctrine to Christianity, and by demonstrating even the scientific soundness of creation, the unbeliever will be drawn to Christ, and the faith of the Christian bolstered." Morris argues that the recent shooting rampages in the public schools, including the one at Santana High School, just a few miles down the road from ICR headquarters, "underscored the frightening effects of brainwashing in the evolution worldview." The Institute runs a Museum of Creation and Earth History, which is free to the public, publishes a monthly magazine called "Acts & Facts," and offers an impressive catalogue of books including "The Defender's Study Bible," "The Controversy: Roots of the Creation-Evolution Conflict," "The Long War Against God," and "Teaching Creation Science in Public Schools." The Institute specializes in children's books, and provides scads of materials on video and CD-ROMs. The Next Arena: 'Intelligent Design' Seaton recognizes, and James Glantz, writing in the New York Times, confirms that anti-evolutionists won't be slinking off into extinction with their proverbial (or mythical) tails tucked between their legs. According to Glantz, instead of being assaulted by an all-out push for a Biblically based creationism, "evolutionists find themselves arrayed…against a more sophisticated idea: the intelligent design theory." Glantz reports that supporters of this theory, including some academics, and intellectuals, as well as biblical creationists, "accept that the earth is billions of years old… but they dispute the idea that natural selection--the force that Darwin suggested drove evolution--is enough to explain the complexity of the Earth's plants and animals. That complexity, they say, must be the work of an intelligent designer." Therefore, proponents argue, if it isn't Donna Karan, Gucci, or Oleg Cassini… the designer must be God.
Even opponents of "intelligent design" theory have a grudging respect for its proponents. "It has an appeal to intellectuals," said Dr. Jerry Coyne, a professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, "who don't know anything about evolutionary biology, first of all because the proponents have PhDs and second of all because it's not written in the sort of populist, folksy, anti-intellectual style. It's written in the argot of academia." Despite the more palatable sounding "intelligent design" theory, People for the American Way's Creationism in 2001 points out that "the Religious Right has shown it will sacrifice good teaching and good science to accomplish its goal of eroding the constitutional separation of church and state." PfAW's report reveals the different methods creationists use to effect changes including, "targeting state and local school boards, stacking textbook committees and curriculum committees, rewriting school libraries' purchasing and donation acceptance policies, and otherwise attempting to gain control over teachers, administrators and state and local legislators" (http://www.pfaw.org/issues/education/creationism_report.pdf). The right's two-pronged strategy of mainstreaming a less devilish sounding creationism - "intelligent design" theory --combined with an all-out assault on the public schools should keep education activists busy for years to come. Bill Berkowitz is a free lance writer covering the Religious Right and related conservative movements. Contact him at wkbbronx@aol.com. |
The play and movie Inherit the Wind brought the issue of creationism versus evolution to the mainstream 
© 1997-2002 BEI