Ignorant Design at the SBOE

Illustration By Doug Potter

The State Board of Education public hearings on new biology and family studies textbooks began July 9, and, like clockwork, Texans of all stripes came out to play their parts in the state's semiannual display of the culture war. This year's performance began with an introduction by the newly appointed chair of the SBOE, Geraldine "Tinsy" Miller. Miller radiated charm and civility, heralding the textbook adoption process as a "wonderful American experience."

The era of good feeling lasted a few seconds -- Miller was immediately followed by board member Terri Leo of Spring, who belongs to no fewer than four Republican women's clubs. Leo icily cautioned that individuals would testify who mistakenly believe the board opposes the teaching of evolution. Not so, she declared.

"There are those who want to censor out any credible science that challenges Darwinism," she said. "If that happens, what hope will we have for civil discourse beyond the schoolroom door? If education is a vehicle for broadening horizons, then differing viewpoints should be welcome." Leo went on to argue that the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, by requiring textbooks to explore scientific strengths and weaknesses, in fact mandates the inclusion of theories alternative to evolution.

Welcome to the Scopes Trial 2003. In the 1920s, before the Supreme Court ruled in favor of science, the debate had been framed by creationists as an epic struggle between the chosen and the godless. These days, sophisticated critics of evolution avoid any mention of a Christian god. Instead, they argue that the scientific mainstream is blind to evidence that evolution is flawed. The basic argument of "intelligent design," as the new creationist philosophy is called, goes like this: Evolutionary evidence can't explain life's most complex designs -- say, for example, the eye. Therefore, evolution must tell only part of the story. Someone or something must be behind the curtain -- a god, an alien, a mad scientist, a Matrix -- orchestrating this whole wonderful mess we call life.

Baylor philosophy professor Francis Beckwith represents the new face of Darwinian critics. He's young, energetic, and painfully reasonable. "I am here to make the modest suggestion," he told the board, "that textbooks appropriately convey to students some of the critical questions raised about aspects of evolution theory in general and Neo-Darwinism in particular. These questions have been raised by scholars that have been published by prestigious presses, academic journals, and have aired their views in the corridors of major academic institutions and other institutions."

These questions have indeed been raised by "scholars" -- mostly Christian philosophers like Beckwith. By contrast, there simply are no respected biologists ready to discard evolution as the fundamental mechanism of biological development over time. Intelligent design certainly raises potent philosophical questions -- you don't need to be a minister or an acidhead to marvel at the complexity of the eye or the origin of life. Unfortunately, science requires a whole tedious rigmarole of hypotheses and experimentation. Unlike evolution, intelligent design can't be tested or demonstrated experimentally, because it presumes what it purports to prove -- so it's really no more scientific than its threadbare cousin, creationism.

That hasn't stopped a conservative think tank called the Discovery Institute from doing its best to market intelligent design as scientifically credible. The Seattle-based institute supports Beckwith's work and that of a small stable of "creation scientists" who disagree with the principles of evolution. For instance, Jonathan Wells, a cell biologist, religious scholar, and author of Icons of Evolution, points to a few misleading photos, old drawings, and misguided experiments as evidence that Darwinism is a fraud. UT biologist David Hillis is cited in Well's book. "Wells turns my ideas completely on their head," he says. "My book looks at how evolution influences the development of cells, and he claims it says the opposite. They are famous for using quotes out of context. This is an anti-science campaign, a misinformation campaign."

When a similar debate came before the Ohio board of education, the institute submitted a bibliography, supposedly supporting intelligent design, comprising 44 biology papers. The National Center for Science Education asked the authors of those papers if their work does, in fact, question evolution. All 26 scientists who responded (representing 34 of the publications) emphatically stated their research does no such thing.

The intelligent-design proponents at the SBOE hearing were overwhelmingly outnumbered -- so the board members themselves had to challenge biologists on the fine points of evolution. Gail Lowe of Lampasas, lifting a page directly from Wells' book, questioned biology teacher (and former Dist. 21 congressional candidate) John Courage about British moth photos that had apparently been staged and then used as evidence in some textbooks. But mostly board members were on the defensive. When biology teacher Saundra Coffey expressed concern that the TEKS requirements would be distorted to include intelligent design, Leo once again insisted the board only wishes to address "scientific weaknesses." When Coffey responded that the TEKS says challenges must "be supported by scientific evidence, which is not the case with intelligent design or creation theory," Leo snapped back. "No one is talking about that." Coffey looked puzzled. The crowd giggled. "Well," Coffey answered, "we're getting awfully close."

The show continues at the next public hearing, Sept. 10. The biology textbooks will be adopted in November.