or at least four years now a heated debate has been raging in certain regions of the United States. Should creationism be taught alongside evolution in the science classroom of public schools? The controversy has divided school boards, parents, and whole communities--in Wisconsin, South Carolina, Kansas, Montana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Georgia, and elsewhere. Not having followed the issues closely, and feeling somewhat removed from the situation, I've refrained from commenting thus far. But a recent editorial in the Washington Post stirred me up a bit.1

Apparently struggling to control its anger, the editorial portrayed the scientific community as up against a bunch of creationists with their "slick Web sites, pseudo-academic conferences and savvy public relations." According to the piece, these numskulls, who "do no experiments and do not publish in recognized scientific journals," have nevertheless had "widespread success in undermining evolutionary theory." Citing a recent CBS poll, the editorial was alarmed that "a startling 55 percent of Americans . . . do not . . . believe in evolution at all." Should this creationist trend continue, says the Post, bad things would happen. Among them, the American scientific community would "[cease] to lead the world."

One of the Post's basic arguments is that "to teach intelligent design as science in public schools is a clear violation of separation of church and state," an argument that resonates with Seventh-day Adventists. But think of it this way: To teach that the earth is flat would be bad science (as is the idea of intelligent design), but it would not infringe church-state separation. Indeed one can make a thousand unscientific assertions in the public classroom without creating church-state problems. The fact that teaching intelligent design does constitute an infringement should tell us that its opposite probably carries religious connotations, as well. The question of origins, carried to its ultimate, moves us away from pure science into the realm of philosophy--even theology.

About four years ago, when it seemed that the anti-creationists had taken control of the ball in places such as Kansas, Oklahoma, and Alabama, the Post had praised the people of those areas for their farsightedness: "Once again," the paper editorialized at the time, "the voters show that they have sounder judgment than the quivering politicians give them credit for."2

Now that the table has turned, the editors of the paper are angry. They're outraged that the public classroom might become exposed to the harebrained concept of "intelligent design"--the belief (in the Post's description) "that intelligent life could not have come about by a random natural process and must have been the work of a single creator." The Post's editors would prefer that American children be taught that intelligent life came about by random natural process.

What concerned me most about the editorial was its apparent posture of intolerance. "I'm reminded," I wrote the editor, "of the religious zealots of the Medieval period who tried to silence the progress of science by threats, ridicule, and the force of canon law." "Now," I said, "it's scientists and their sympathizers who're fearful and nervous. Why do you feel so threatened by the concept of 'intelligent design'? By what logic can you defend the position that the propagation by some people of such a belief would mean that the American scientific community would '[cease] to lead the world'? What a reach!"

Those close to me know how the abrasive, confrontational tactics of the American Religious Right frustrate me. But it seems to me that what the Post's editors would prefer is that religious parents simply roll over and play dead while their children are subjected to ideas that, were it not for the "scientific" mantle thrown over them, would otherwise have been considered totally illogical and nonsensical, namely, that the complex systems we see around us came by random natural process.

It wasn't my intention to address all the complex issues surrounding this controversy. My focus has been limited to the Post editorial. And my single point is that truth should have nothing to fear from close examination. Let the ideas compete.

_________________________
1 "God and Darwin," Washington Post, Jan. 24, 2005, p. A14.
2 "A Creationist Lesson," Washington Post, Aug. 4, 2000, p. A28.