The Bell Curve -- Joseph N. Bell

There are certain things in life we can absolutely count on. The

September collapse of the California Angels. Orange County going

Republican. Those obsequious swallows coming back to Capistrano. And the

annual effort by Wendy Leece to include creationism (currently being

retreaded as “intelligent design”) in the local high school science

curriculum.

An outlander moving to Orange County six months ago and getting his

local information from the Pilot’s Community Forum pages might well be

convinced that the Newport-Mesa school board consists of Wendy Leece, one

drunken driver and five other anonymous citizens who only surface in

public print when they refuse to vote Wendy in as their leader.

On behalf of readers who may be wondering if there are other school

board activities going on besides the Wendy Issues, I checked in with a

couple of those anonymous members.

Turns out they’ve been pretty busy on school matters, especially

trying to figure out how to minimize a $4 million hit from property tax

revenue as the result of a recent Proposition 13 court decision. So busy,

in fact, that diverting time and energy to the annual creationism issue

seems downright frivolous.

It has been referred to a study session, where it probably won’t go

away. So in the interest of saving staff time, I sought out one of the

world’s leading experts on the conflict between the teaching of evolution

and various forms of creationism in our public schools. His name is

Francisco Ayala, and he holds the Bren Chair in Ecology and Evolutionary

Biology at UC Irvine.

His qualifications would fill the rest of this column, so I’ll mention

only a few. He has a doctorate in genetic biology from Columbia

University; was inducted into the National Academy of Sciences in 1980;

served as a science consultant to both popes and U.S. presidents; and

testified on behalf of the academy against an Arkansas law, finally

rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court, that required science classes in the

state to give equal time to evolution and creationism.

He said at the time: “If we allowed the Book of Genesis to be taught

as science, that would be as bad for science as it would be for

religion.” He hasn’t changed that view since the Arkansas case. Nor has

he become any less outspoken. “There is no scientific validity in

intelligent design,” he told me. “Blaming God for the mistakes in the

design of the human body is blasphemy.”

Then, one by one he responded to the arguments of the creationists.

First, evolution is still a theory, just like creationism.

“In everyday English, a theory is an imperfect fact. But in science, a

theory is based on and incorporates a body of knowledge. Scientists agree

that the evolutionary origin of animals and plants is a scientific

conclusion beyond reasonable doubt.”

Second, teaching evolution encourages atheism.

Here, Ayala has special credentials. Before turning to science, he was

a Catholic priest. He said then and he says now that “evolution is

perfectly compatible with religion and faith. Natural science does not

deny God. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral

perceptions, but these subjects transcend science’s realm. We acquire

knowledge in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts,

philosophical reflection and religious experience.”

He points to Pope John Paul II’s statement that “the Bible speaks to

us of the origins of the universe and its makeup, not in order to provide

us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct

relationship of man with God and the universe.”

Third, creationism deserves a place alongside evolution in teaching

science to our children.

Says Ayala: “The theory of evolution needs to be taught in the schools

because nothing in biology makes sense without it. We need our kids to be

properly trained in biology to enjoy a meaningful life in a technological

world. Where is the science in creationism? Its studies aren’t published

in scientifically sound journals because the people advocating it don’t

do science. Genesis is a book of religious revelations, not a textbook on

astronomy or biology.”

I pointed out that studies done by People For the American Way found

almost 30% of Americans wanted creationism taught as science. Would this

suggest a need to compromise?

“We don’t make decisions in science by taking polls,” said Ayala. “Our

kids should be taught only science in science classes. Scientific

knowledge doesn’t grow out of consensus. I would encourage the teaching

of creationism in sociology or comparative religion or philosophy

classes. But not as science.”

* JOSEPH N. BELL is a resident of Santa Ana Heights. His column

appears Thursdays.