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.
All the latest on Orange County from Orange County.
Get our free TimesOC newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Daily Pilot.