澳门跑狗论坛

Scientists, teachers, and others who defend the teaching of evolution in public school science classes have grown accustomed to countering accusations that acceptance of the theory disavows religious faith.

Now, an increasing number of grassroots organizations are trying to fight that perception with renewed vigor, and in so doing, cultivate rank-and-file support for the theory of life鈥檚 origins advanced by Charles Darwin nearly 150 years ago.

In states such as Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, advocates from various backgrounds are making a stronger push to convince the public, as well as state and local decisionmakers, that support for evolution is not inconsistent with belief in God.

Some of those efforts are playing out in places roiled by attempts to encourage greater criticism of evolution, or introduce students to alternative views such as 鈥渋ntelligent design,鈥� the controversial belief that life, including human development, might have been directed by a master designer.

Many defenders of evolution have long emphasized that the established theory can easily mesh with religious convictions. 鈥淔acts and faith both have the power to improve people鈥檚 lives,鈥� wrote Alan I. Leshner, the chief executive officer of the Washington-based American Association for the Advancement of Science, in an April 11 letter to members of the Kansas state board of education. The board is considering changes to state standards to encourage more criticism of evolution.

But proponents of evolution say an even more organized effort to carry that message is emerging鈥攁 message they believe will resonate with parents, students, and the public at large.

Such undertakings emerge as 31 states over the past year have seen challenges to evolution鈥攎any unsuccessful鈥攊n individual classrooms, local or state school boards, and legislatures, according to the National Center for Science Education, in Oakland, Calif., which opposes attempts to weaken the teaching of that theory.

鈥淩epeatedly, what we hear is that it鈥檚 a fight between scientists and religious leaders,鈥� said Michael Zimmerman, a biology professor and dean at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh. 鈥淧eople believe you have to choose. Now you have a group in the middle saying you don鈥檛 have to choose.鈥�

Last year, Mr. Zimmerman helped write a letter, signed by nearly 200 clergy members in Wisconsin, saying that evolution is a 鈥渇oundational scientific truth,鈥� which could 鈥渃omfortably coexist鈥� with religious belief. That letter was sent to school board members in Grantsburg, Wis., who had approved a policy encouraging criticism of evolution in their district鈥檚 curriculum. The letter asked those officials to reaffirm evolution鈥檚 importance in science classes.

Petitions and Campaigns

Since then, Mr. Zimmerman鈥檚 letter, which is on the Internet, has been circulated to religious leaders across the country, collecting more than 7,000 signatures. His goal is to record 10,000 signatures nationwide, at which point he hopes to initiate a public-awareness campaign about the letter鈥檚 message.

A similar point is being made by a group of political candidates in Dover, Pa., where the school board last year mandated that students be made aware of such views as intelligent design alongside evolution in biology classes. In response, an organization called Dover CARES is supporting seven challengers who oppose the policy. The Dover CARES group says intelligent-design theory should be allowed in the 3,600-student district鈥檚 social studies or comparative religion classes, but not in biology lessons. (鈥淒over, Pa., Board Race Takes Intelligent Design to Voters,鈥� June 15, 2005.)

The group鈥檚 Web site, www.dovercares.org, notes religion鈥檚 importance to society, and in offering candidates鈥� biographies, points out the church activities of three of them鈥攁s a choir member, a church building-committee member, and the director of a vacation Bible school.

Warren Eshbach, a retired minister in the Church of the Brethren and a founder of Dover CARES, said the group has not made an official decision to emphasize the religious backgrounds of its candidates. But he acknowledged a hope that making those affiliations known might defeat accusations of anti-religious bias.

鈥淚 don鈥檛 believe the first two chapters of Genesis were meant to be scientific textbooks for the 21st century,鈥� said Mr. Eshbach, who is not a candidate.

It is unclear whether that message will take hold. The group鈥檚 Web site says that in response to attacks from opponents, it is making it known that its acronym stands for Citizens Actively Reviewing Educational Strategies, not 鈥渃itizens against religious education in schools.鈥�

Darwin鈥檚 God?

Most scientists believe natural and supernatural explanations can and should be evaluated independently. And many religious faiths and Christian denominations have reconciled acceptance of evolution with belief in God, a stance that is sometimes known as theistic evolution.

鈥淯nderstanding evolution and its description of the processes that gave rise to the modern world is an important part of knowing and appreciating God,鈥� wrote Kenneth R. Miller, a prominent biologist and textbook author, in his 1999 book Finding Darwin鈥檚 God: A Scientist鈥檚 Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution.

鈥淎s a scientist and a Christian, that is exactly what I believe,鈥� wrote Mr. Miller, a Roman Catholic. 鈥淭rue knowledge comes only from a combination of faith and reason.鈥�

But other religious groups, such as Christian fundamentalists, who interpret the Bible more literally, say acceptance of evolution鈥攖he general belief, accepted by the vast majority of scientists, that humans and other species evolve over time through natural selection and random mutation鈥攊mplies that life is purposeless.

鈥淭here is a conflict,鈥� said John H. Calvert, the managing director of the Intelligent Design Network, in Shawnee Mission, Kan. Mr. Calvert believes that scientists and other supporters of evolution are now focusing on their religious faith, after wrongly assuming they could convince the public of evolution鈥檚 validity by citing their professional credentials.

鈥淚t鈥檚 a political strategy,鈥� he argued, 鈥渢hat鈥檚 designed to keep a constituency that presently supports evolution.鈥�

Connie Morris, a Kansas state school board member who supports including more criticism of evolution in her state鈥檚 science standards, published a newsletter for her constituents earlier this year describing the theory as 鈥渁n age-old fairytale,鈥� and accused some critics of harboring 鈥渁nti-God contempt and arrogance.鈥�

But Ms. Morris, in a recent interview, said some scientists were wrongly accusing her and others of trying to inject religion into science, when she simply favors allowing more criticism of evolution. Defenders of the theory of evolution who are reasserting their religious convictions, she said, are missing the point.

鈥淲hat鈥檚 relevant here is science,鈥� she said. 鈥淵ou want to be able to analyze evolution with all its flaws and all its strengths.鈥�

Cardinal Weighs In

Many supporters of evolution said they were disappointed by recent comments of Cardinal Christoph Sch枚nborn, the Catholic archbishop of Vienna, Austria, who appeared to back away from what some observers had seen as his church鈥檚 earlier acceptance of the scientific theory. The late Pope John Paul II said in 1996 that evolution was 鈥渕ore than just a hypothesis.鈥�

鈥淓volution in the sense of common ancestry might be true,鈥� the cardinal wrote in a July 7 New York Times opinion piece, 鈥渂ut evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense鈥攁n unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection鈥攊s not.鈥�

That opinion frustrated Harry E. McDonald, a former high school biology teacher who is the president of Kansas Citizens for Science. Throughout Kansas鈥� public hearings on evolution in May, Mr. McDonald鈥檚 organization countered critics of evolution not just by presenting scientific data, but by handing out doctrinal statements from various religious groups supporting the theory.

Those materials included the letter from members of the Wisconsin clergy.

Evolution鈥檚 critics 鈥渢ake their views out to basically an uneducated scientific populace and say, 鈥榊ou have to choose between science and faith,鈥� 鈥� Mr. McDonald said. The public tends to respond by saying, 鈥� 鈥榃ell, if there鈥檚 a conflict, we choose God.鈥� Our point is, you can be people of faith. 鈥� There鈥檚 not an inherent contradiction.鈥�