|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
August 2, 2003Rep says evolution remains unprovenHe's sponsoringa bill to teach creationismByRecord-Eagle staff writer PETOSKEY - "Intelligent design" - the theory that life on Earth is the result of a creator's plan - is science, not religion. So says state Rep. Ken Bradstreet, the lead sponsor of a bill that would mandate adding creationism to the discussion if evolution is taught in Michigan's public schools. "Good science is not blocking off all other theories except the one we like," said Bradstreet, R-Gaylord. Bradstreet said many things in nature cannot be explained under the theory of evolution espoused by Charles Darwin - that life forms on earth evolved from common ancestors over millions of years. Lisa Hoogerhyde, a middle-school science teacher at Central Lake Public Schools, said teaching intelligent design would cause an uproar. "I think some parents would have a very hard time with that being taught to their kids," she said, noting parents who believe in creationism often teach it to their children at home or in church. Bradstreet likened his cause to that of John Scopes, a Tennessee teacher charged with teaching evolution in his biology classroom in 1925, at a time when governments mandated creationism. "Today the pendulum has swung all the way to the other side," Bradstreet said. Bradstreet's House Bill 4946, which has 24 co-sponsors, would amend the state's core school curriculum. All references to "evolution," "natural selection" and "how species change through time" would be modified to indicate they are unproven theories. The curriculum would mandate that students "describe how life may be the result of a purposeful, intelligent design of a Creator." "Young people need to understand that evolution is a theory, that it has some major weaknesses," Bradstreet said. Gravity is an unproven scientific theory, too, said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, Calif. The center defends the teaching of evolution in public schools, monitors the creation-evolution controversy nationwide, and provides information to communities struggling with the issue. Any government attempt to force attribution of a scientific phenomenon to a creator is mandating a religious belief in a public classroom and would run counter to the well-established judicial principles of the separation of church and state, Scott said. "If this bill accidentally passes, the state of Michigan will be in for a lawsuit that you're going to lose," she said. "If your state is like mine, you probably don't have a lot of extra money to be throwing away for no good reason." It's not for legislators to say what should be taught in a science classroom, Scott said. "If a scientific idea has merit, it will be judged so by scientists and trickle down to the high school curriculum," she said. "To mandate intelligent design before it is accepted by the scientific community is wrong-headed, and bad for science education." Bradstreet countered that there is "compelling scientific evidence supporting intelligent design," and that there are "thousands of scientists who believe exactly" what is proposed in his bill. James Pavelka, superintendent of Traverse City Area Public Schools, said the district runs a state-mandated curriculum, and would be forced to include intelligent design if so ordered by the Department of Education. A similar bill Bradstreet co-sponsored in 2001 died in committee. But Bradstreet said he is confident his new bill will get a hearing in the Education Committee. Eight of the bill's co-sponsors are on the 19-member committee.
|
|
