澳门跑狗论坛

When science teachers in a small Pennsylvania town were asked last month to read a statement to their classes that introduced students to the concept of 鈥渋ntelligent design,鈥� they refused, citing legal and professional obligations.

In taking that stand against what critics say amounts to thinly disguised religious doctrine, teachers in the 3,600-student Dover Area school system endorsed a position in line with two of the country鈥檚 largest groups for science teachers鈥攁nd the vast majority of leading scientists.

Yet for the past two decades, studies have consistently offered a more complicated picture of high school science teachers鈥� opinions of religion鈥檚 role in their classrooms鈥攐ne that more closely reflects the views of the public at large.

A survey of teachers in Oklahoma, conducted in 1999, found that about 25 percent of public school life-science teachers placed at least moderate emphasis on creationism, or the biblical belief that God created the universe, in their classes. Forty-eight percent believed strong scientific evidence exists for creationism, the study found.

In Louisiana, 29 percent of public high school biology teachers said creationism should be presented in the classes they teach, according to another study, published in 1999.

And in Minnesota, a survey of first-year biology students at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities reported that only 38 percent said their high school biology courses had emphasized evolution. Twenty percent of those students said their courses had emphasized creationism, according to that 2004 study. Similar polls dating back to the 1980s, from states such as Illinois, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota, closely mirror those results.

鈥淚t鈥檚 accurate, but disappointing,鈥� Wayne W. Carley, the executive director of the National Association of Biology Teachers, said of the opinions reflected in the surveys. Once a science instructor closes the door of a class, 鈥渢here鈥檚 no telling what the teacher is doing,鈥� he said.

Despite the courts鈥� consistent rejection of attempts to include creationism and other religiously based beliefs in high school science lessons, support for recognition of those views persists. In the past few months, debates over proposed alternatives to the theory of evolution鈥攁ccepted overwhelmingly within the scientific community鈥攈ave emerged again in districts in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Increasingly, such debates center not on overtly biblical beliefs, but on intelligent design鈥攖he general belief that an intelligent cause has influenced the development of living things.

Both Mr. Carley鈥檚 Reston, Va.-based organization and the National Science Teachers Association, in Arlington, Va., strongly support the teaching of evolution and oppose efforts to present concepts they see as based in religion as science.

鈥淭his is not a phenomenon that鈥檚 restricted to the Bible Belt, or the South, or any of the stereotypes out there,鈥� Randy Moore, a biology professor at the University of Minnesota, who has studied teachers鈥� attitudes toward evolution, said of the prevalence of creationism in public schools. 鈥淚t鈥檚 common everywhere.鈥�

Suspicion From Both Sides

One obvious factor in the teacher-survey results, school officials say, is the overall prevalence of Christian beliefs among teachers and the communities they serve. According to a national poll conducted by CBS News last November, 65 percent of adults responding favored schools鈥� teaching of both evolution and creationism, while 37 percent believed schools should offer creationism instead of evolution. (That survey had a 3-percentage-point margin of error.)

The force of public opinion ultimately leads some teachers, even those who want to keep religion out of evolution discussions, to give creationism equal time, Mr. Moore contends. 鈥淧arents complain,鈥� he said. 鈥淪chool boards complain. Teachers say, 鈥業 have to live with these people.鈥� 鈥�

But John H. Calvert, a managing director of the Intelligent Design Network, says the pressure works both ways. Mr. Calvert, whose organization is based in Shawnee Mission, Kan., said he often hears from teachers who want to introduce intelligent design to students, but are afraid they鈥檒l be sued or fired if they try. He encourages them to meet with administrators to explain how they would broach the subject before taking any further action.

鈥淲e want a teacher to decide they are going to do this with the comfort that they鈥檙e not going to get a pink slip,鈥� Mr. Calvert said.

One teacher who came under scrutiny for teaching intelligent design is Roger DeHart. The former teacher at Burlington-Edison High School in Washington state initially began telling his students about intelligent design in the late 1990s鈥攖hough he says he was talking about the general concept long before then, even if he didn鈥檛 know what to call it.

Mr. DeHart had read Of Pandas and People, a book supportive of intelligent design, and incorporated some of that material into lessons. He says he gave a thorough treatment of evolution, and never presented religious doctrine to his students.

鈥淚 kind of drew a line early on, that there is science, and the Bible didn鈥檛 have an aspect in it,鈥� Mr. DeHart said. Today, 鈥渁ny criticism to Darwin is seen as almost blasphemous,鈥� the teacher added. 鈥淭o say that there鈥檚 no part of science that can鈥檛 be questioned鈥攖hat鈥檚 not good science.鈥�

Mr. DeHart鈥檚 approach drew complaints from parents and the American Civil Liberties Union, and a few years later, he was reassigned to teach other science subjects. (Burlington-Edison Principal Beth Vanderveen recalls Mr. DeHart as an 鈥渆xcellent teacher,鈥� and said he was reassigned because of staffing shortages in other science subjects.) Mr. DeHart eventually left the district, and now teaches at a Christian school in California.

Debate over the scientific validity of intelligent design erupted last fall in the Dover district in south-central Pennsylvania. In a move that has drawn national attention, that district鈥檚 school board decided to revise its curriculum to require that students be made aware of 鈥済aps/problems鈥� in Charles Darwin鈥檚 theory of evolution鈥攁nd of alternative views, including intelligent design. The action sparked a federal lawsuit from opponents seeking to halt the district鈥檚 policy; they contend it violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

Science and Belief

Intelligent design posits that the complexity of the world and living organisms cannot be explained entirely by natural processes, such as evolution, and that some form of intelligent cause must have played a role. Backers of that view often point to the apparent irregularity and complexity of species鈥� development to speculate that they were the product of a design.

Proponents of intelligent design have called it a scientific theory, but that description angers most scientists, who define 鈥渢heory鈥� as an explanation that has been thoroughly vetted and has support from several lines of evidence. A 1999 report by the National Academy of Sciences, widely regarded as the nation鈥檚 top advisory body on scientific issues, said that both creationism and intelligent design 鈥渁re not science.鈥� Those concepts 鈥渟ubordinate data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief,鈥� the study said.

The federal No Child Left Behind Act calls for the use of 鈥渟cientifically based research鈥� as a foundation for education programs and classroom instruction. But Grover J. 鈥淩uss鈥� Whitehurst, the director of the U.S. Department of Education鈥檚 Institute of Education Sciences, said in a statement that the standard is not meant to address the teaching of evolution and intelligent design. The requirement for scientifically based research is used to gauge whether individual education programs are accomplishing their goals, he said.

鈥淥ur standards are not relevant to the question of whether intelligent design or evolutionary theory best characterize the origin and development of life,鈥� Mr. Whitehurst wrote in response to the question from 澳门跑狗论坛. 鈥淭hat is a question for the biological sciences, not the education sciences.鈥�

Unsolved Mysteries

As districts wrangle over how to teach evolution, some scientists say that state leaders have provided classroom instructors with little support for developing a stronger understanding of the subject. In 2000, Lawrence S. Lerner, of California State University-Long Beach, conducted a study that found 31 states were doing at least an adequate job of explaining evolution in their state standards, but 19 were doing 鈥渨eak to reprehensible鈥� jobs.

Some teachers, meanwhile, say the current debate over intelligent design and evolution has polarized an issue that a sizable proportion of the public views as more nuanced. A 2000 survey conducted for the liberal advocacy group People for the American Way, in Washington, found that among people familiar with the term 鈥渆volution,鈥� 68 percent said an individual can believe in that theory and still believe that God created humans and guided their development. Twenty-eight percent disagreed, and 4 percent expressed uncertainty.

Observers note that many religious faiths and philosophical movements have allowed a role for both a supreme being and evolution. 鈥淕od created the universe, and evolution is a part of it,鈥� Mr. Lerner said, in describing one view. 鈥淲hat鈥檚 wrong with that?鈥�

Some teachers who oppose allowing religion into public school science classes say they try to find room for a less divisive discussion. Brad Williamson, a biology teacher at Kansas鈥� Olathe East High School, was vocal in his opposition to the attempts of some state board of education members to remove evolution from Kansas鈥� curriculum a few years ago. He tells students from the outset that his class will focus on science, not religion. But he says he also acknowledges to them that there are mysteries in the natural world that the scientific community does not yet understand, such as what came before the Big Bang.

鈥淭hat sure does leave a lot of room for religious revelation,鈥� said Mr. Williamson, who works in the 24,000-student Olathe Unified School District 233.

He recalled a recent conversation he had with two students who typically brought Bibles with them to his biology class. One day, after hearing the two girls talk about Islam, a subject they said they had been introduced to at their Christian church, Mr. Williamson asked if they thought their church was trying to convert them to that religion.

鈥淥f course not,鈥� they said.

鈥淲ell,鈥� responded the science teacher, 鈥淚鈥檓 not either.鈥�