In a media statement issued April 12, Alan Leshner, chief executive of the Washington, D.C.-based AAAS, said the association is concerned that rather than contributing to science education, the hearing "will most likely serve to confuse the public about the nature of scientific enterprise."
Teach the Controversy
John West is the associate director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and an advocate of the institute's "teach the controversy" approach to teaching evolution in U.S. public schools.
The approach steers clear of teaching intelligent-design theory in the schools (the Discovery Institute believes the theory is too new to be required). Instead, "teach the controversy" promotes teaching "all the evidence relating to evolutionary theory," West said.
Included in the evidence are what the Discovery Institute views as legitimate criticisms of evolutionary theory, such as the limits of natural selection and random mutation in explaining the explosion of new body plans during the Cambrian period (about 570 million years ago).
"If high school or college students are capable of understanding evidence for evolution, certainly they could understand scientific criticisms of key parts of the theory, particularly the limit to the creative power of selection and random mutation," West said.
Eugenie Scott is director of the Oakland, California-based National Center for Science Education, which defends the teaching of evolution in schools. She said the problem with the "teach the controversy" approach to teaching evolution is "there's no controversy."
According to Scott, anybody who surveys the peer-reviewed scientific literature will uncover articles documenting disagreements over the pattern and process of evolution, "but they won't find arguments over whether living things have common ancestors," she said.
Behe, the Lehigh University biochemist, said, "Everybody agrees Darwinian theory does explain some things. The question is, is it a good explanation for everything? That is where people start to disagree."
Numbers, the University of Wisconsin-Madison science historian, said that, on the face of it, teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolution looks innocuous and in fact is what science teachers should try to do when discussing any theory.
"I'd be in favor of it if I didn't realize this as a rhetorical ploy to get teachers to undermine evolution," he said.
According to Scott, any scientific views presented by the intelligent-design community have the same chance as any other scientific idea of landing in the classroom, but they first must be accepted as viable by the scientific community. High school teachers, she said, are limited to teaching the consensus view of their subjects.
"What you'll find is ID [intelligent design] has not gone anywhere in the science community," she said. "The scientists have looked at ID and said, Hmmm, not ready for prime time."
According to Behe, the biochemist, recognizing the signature of the intelligent agent is like recognizing that the faces of the U.S. presidents carved into South Dakota's Mount Rushmore is the work of humans, not chaotic, random events.
Advocates of intelligent design say certain things in nature (such as the complex molecular "machines" found in a cell) cannot be explained by evolution. Such features have the earmark of an intelligent agent, ID advicates say.
"The justification for design is that these systems seem to have features we associate with designed systems," Behe said. "They have intricate parts that interact with each other."
Until these complex components of nature are proven to result from evolution or some other process, Behe said, scientists ought to allow the plausibility that they are the work of an intelligent agent.
"Many people in academia, in the sciences, take it as a principle that they should not resort to an explanation that has a strong philosophical, theological ramification," he said. "But that is not so in the case of the general public."
According to Miller, the Brown University biologist, academia is opposed to explanations that rely on God as a causal agent because they go against the very definition of science: seeking a natural explanation for natural events and phenomenon.
The intelligent-design movement, Miller said, seeks to allow a non-natural explanation into science. "By altering the definition of science, they seek a playing field where the supernatural can have scientific meaning."
Numbers, the science historian, said doing so would be disastrous for science education. "The heart of scientific enterprise is to try to solve these problems naturally, not just say, OK, this is intelligently designed, so we're giving up."
SOURCES AND RELATED WEB SITES