Adjunct faculty member, the Rev. Dr. Warren Eshbach, provides theological perspective to Dover, PA intelligent design controversy. Below is the text of his lecture offered to a chapter meeting of the ACLU in State College, PA in June 2005.
 

Considering the Issue of Intelligent Design
 in the Dover Area School District

Good evening ladies and gentlemen.  It is a privilege for me to address this chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union regarding the issue of Intelligent Design as it pertains to the Dover Area School District in Dover, PA.

If my Pottstown PA High School biology teacher or my Gettysburg College professor of biology are still living and knew that I was tackling this subject, they would both laugh and shake their heads.  If they are dead, there may be some fault lines around their grave sites, for   I am the last person that they would have picked to speak on this subject which touches deeply upon the biological sciences.

The truth is, however, that I speak to this subject not as a scientist, but as a theologian and practitioner of Christian ministry, as well as one who believes in the American experiment of constitutional governance.

The situation that commands our attention this evening regarding a decision last year by the Dover PA Area School District Board of Directors centers, in my opinion, around three key issues:

1.      Religion and Science

2.      Religion and Governance

3.      Issues of Leadership

It is these three issues that frame the current debate.  Although many in the news media wish to focus only on Intelligent Design, that debate in itself is not adequate to see the whole picture.

One news reporter, even admitted that while issues of governance and leadership were important, those issues were only the “small stuff”, compared to the headlines which Intelligent Design can create.  I reminded that reporter that it is the “small stuff”, when left unattended, that creates chaos in decision-making, leadership, and governance.

In this context then, let’s look at the statement that the Dover Area School District approved on November 19, 2004.  It reads as follows:

            “Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as

            new evidence is discovered.  The Theory is not a fact.  Gaps

            in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence.  A theory is

            defined as a well tested explanation that unifies a broad range

            of observations.

            Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs

            from Darwin’s view.   The reference book Of Pandas and People

            is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view

in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design

 actually involves.  As is true with any theory, students are

encouraged to keep an open mind.

 Religion and Science

This statement by the Dover Area School Board intended to require biology teachers to present “intelligent design” as an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution.  On the surface it would appear that the “intelligent design” theory is another scientifically proven theory on par with Darwin’s theory of evolution which is over 150 years old.  The question then becomes, “Why shouldn’t students in science class be given the opportunity to look at both issues and decide for themselves?  After all, isn’t this the democratic American way?”

But let’s look more deeply here!  A key question to begin with is, “What is a theory in the scientific arena?  Bill Allen, editor for National Geographic states:

            “that when scientists say “theory”, they mean a statement based
            on observation or experimentation that explains facets of the observable
            world so well that it becomes accepted as fact.  They do not mean an
            idea created out of thin air, nor do they mean an unsubstantiated belief’”[1]

The intelligent design idea stresses that certain features of life and the universe are so complex that they just had to be the product of a master intellect who is an intelligent, super natural designer.  Proponents of this idea maintain that cell structures, such as flagella, are too irreducibly complex to have evolved.  So an intelligent designer had to be behind this.

In response to this, Margaret Gray Towne, in her book Honest to Genesis asks this question,

            “. . . why do disease causing microbes, imperfect eyesight, or non-functional

wisdom teeth exist?  Are some things designed and others not?  Why have most organisms which have ever lived gone extinct?  Is that poor design? Could the designer work through evolutionary mechanisms?  Why does a designer allow predation, infant mortality, volcanoes, earthquakes, death?  Those adhering to the intelligent design position have not as yet produced experimental, peer-reviewed data which support their point.  Since they wish to have it incorporated into public school curricula, most  of the leaders of this movement are careful not to identify the designer, but some authors have asserted that the Intelligent Designer is indeed the God of the Bible.  They explain that pain and death are the result of human error, sin, and are not to be blamed on the designer.  This is a theological position, not a scientific one.”[2] 

Recognizing the difference between scientific theory and the idea of Intelligent Design, the Dover High School science teachers refused to read the school board induced statement.  They countered that the mandated statement amounted to teaching the Intelligent Design approach which is inherently philosophical and not scientific.  One teacher noted:

            Kids are smart enough to understand what Intelligent Design means, 

The first question they will ask is  ”Well, who is the designer?  Do

you mean God?”[3] 

A key question in this debate is a scientific one—namely, is intelligent design a recognized field of science, with provable hypotheses, trials, collected data, etc?  From my readings, even the writings of key proponents, do not agree as to it provability as a theory!  Perhaps someday it will be, but until that time the philosophy of Intelligent Design should not be taught in science class.

Can this issued be taught in public school?  Yes, but in a venue where it can be discussed.  Where does it belong?  In a comparative religion class on the Origins of Life, or Philosophies of the Beginning of Life.  As of yet, I do not believe it offers an adequate scientific proof of the beginnings of life to be included in the science classroom.

Now having said that, I would like to offer the following theological and faith affirmations about the beginnings of life.  I believe:

1.      That Genesis 1-11 was not written as a scientific text book for the 21st century.  It was, and still is a beautiful and inspirational Judeo-Christian faith statement about the beginnings of life. The story was not carved out of stone by primeval short-hand  secretary recording creation as it happened.

It is a faith story handed down by oral tradition expressing how the writer believes the origin of life began.  This early Hebrew faith statement is similar to other creation stories of other cultures in the early period of primeval history.  To accept this, does not negate a Creator God nor make Genesis less authoritative as a theological, faith statement in regard to the beginnings of life.

2.      There are two creation stories in Genesis (Genesis 1:1-2; 3 and Genesis 2:4ff). One begins with progression and evolves toward humanity.  The second begins with the creation of Adam and Eve and tells the story of the first human beings.

Religion and science need not be pitted against each other in this debate!  The God I worship is big enough to embrace both evolution and intelligent design.  The issue for me is that we are confusing science and religion.  As Austin Farrer once said, “Science studies the pattern; theology assigns the cause.”

Again, quoting Margaret Gray Towne,

“There is no conflict between science and religion, nor between evolutionary theory and the profound theology of Genesis.  The conflict is between modern science and the literal pseudoscience of Genesis.” 4

Almost half of all Christians believe in God and evolution.  The God we worship is big enough to embrace both.

Kenneth R. Miller, a professor of Biology at Brown University, Roman Catholic, an opponent of Intelligent Design, and author of the current biology text being used in the Dover School District says:

            “I think there is a God and he is the creator of the universe.  But the
             God of the intelligent design movement is way too small.”[4]

Is our God big enough to embrace all aspects of this debate?  I believe so!  My belief is confirmed by the fact that on my farm I see evolution all the time.    Tadpoles become frogs in my pond.  Caterpillars become beautiful butterflies!  Rotted old seed potatoes are transformed and evolve into beautiful green plants producing new potatoes.

The God of my faith is a God of incarnation, transformation, and evolvement.  Life is brought forth from death.  Creation evolves to new creation.  God is full of surprises and can create not according to how I think, but according to the witness of the galaxies, the universe, and humanity itself. 

Christians can believe in evolution without going against their belief in a Creator God.  The scientific theory of evolution and the philosophy of intelligent design do not have to be mutually exclusive.  The infinite God encompasses both.  Our finiteness may not understand them, but the infinite creator does.

Religion and Governance 

Religion has always played a role in the affairs of our nation and particularly in this commonwealth where freedom of speech and conscience has always been a cornerstone.  The real issue in the current debate in the Dover Area School District goes far beyond that of science and religion.  It strikes at the core issue of church and state.  Should any particular theological belief be imposed by the School Board on persons who cannot conscientiously accept or teach them as part of the science curriculum?

As a result of the school board’s decision – high school science teachers have felt caught between the U.S. Supreme Court decision of 1987 regarding creationism (or by whatever name it may now subtly possess) and the mandate of the local school board.

The decision of the school board to have read a statement in science class to science students which places the Intelligent Design concept on par with Darwin’s scientific findings is troubling.  Why?  Because Intelligent Design at this point is not science, and for many educators, points at endorsing creationism.   Thus, it is not constitutional to teach this subject in science class, at this point in time.

While Intelligent Design is an exciting concept about the origins of life, it never the less pre-supposes an intelligent designer!  Do I personally believe in such a Designer?  Yes, as I accepts in faith a Creator God!  But the concept for me belongs in another venue.  It cannot confuse science and faith. 

A course in cosmology which examines the full range of choices about the origins of life, or a course on comparative religions would be far preferable and offer students views which do not confuse theology and science.   Such courses could present views on the beginnings of time and life, without teacher endorsement of course, of any one of  these.  But the Dover School board chose not to do that.

In matters of such public discourse, the school board could have sought to amicably and collaboratively involve residents in a reasonable search on how to teach other perspectives about the origins of life which touch on  various philosophies and theologies.  How can we learn in a pluralistic culture?  In this instance such a forum could have included professional teachers, pastors, theologians, students and parents.  Such a forum would be an educational opportunity, but more importantly, a model for our community on how to listen to differing opinions and arrive at an informed and enlightened solution.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, the Board chose a more arbitrary position based on specific theological/political perspectives in today’s cultural climate.  The core issue, I repeat, is in what venue should Intelligent Design,and concepts like it, be taught in the public school, while remaining faithful to the separation of church and state principles of the constitution.  It can be done!  But do we have the will and patience to make it happen?

That question can not be answered by theology, philosophy, politics, or science alone!  It can be answered only through discussion and conversation in the public arena. It must be decided on the basis of what is possible in the educational system in terms of educational value and the legality of the law. 

My interest in this debate is more pastoral then theological, more informed by Anabaptist/Pietist principles then by classical Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. 

My denomination, the Church of the Brethren, was born in a hot culture war of the 16^th-18^th centuries in Europe.  We were persecuted, tortured, killed and imprisoned because we believed that no state or local government had the right to determine the baptism of our infants, nor the right to force us to go to war, nor the right to make politics and religion so intertwined that the religion of the Prince determined the religion of the territory (Treaty of Westphalia, 1648.) 

Those who suffered these persecutions were invited to Pennsylvania by William Penn who founded a colony based on religious tolerance.  We sit in that territory this evening. 

The United States Constitution and its subsequent Bill of Rights did away with the establishment of religion in order to protect the rights of religious people from the state, and the right of the state from religious interference.  Our founders--  some who were members of establishment churches and some who were not--  believed that what the world had just experienced in Europe was not what people in a new nation should have to embrace.

My greatest concern in this current debate goes beyond the Dover School District.  My concern is not how people see the Bible; the Bible has been here for thousands of years, and will survive for thousands more because it contains within it the Breath of God.  Rather, my concern is about how we as Christians interpret and use that Bible in the course of our everyday interaction with other people, nations, theologies, and viewpoints.  The revelation of God in Jesus Christ, as seen in the Gospel accounts, calls me as a Christian disciple to the highest respect for all human beings created by God.  Jesus calls me to love God, my neighbor as myself, and even to love my enemies. 

These principles have far more to do with religion and governance then they do with religion and science. 

Issues of Leadership

Good leadership does not happen in a vacuum.  The board of any organization is not individual members making private decisions, nor being influenced privately by outside forces.  A board can only act as a board when it meets and does its work.  An effective board is always a listening board.  It listens to its constituency as well as to its own leadership.  It can only be as effective as its leaders’ model openness and respect for other viewpoints. 

In this current situation the question has to be asked:  how does a school board lead in a servant role?  The current cultural wars over various issues of political and religious significance may tempt us to find solutions that are popular, or which adhere to a certain political perspective on the right or left of any issue.  An effective board will bend to neither, but will seek to find solutions that neither break the law nor adhere to one strident perspective. 

It is not the responsibility of the board to pit people against each other, nor to compete rather than cooperate.  Rather, it is a response to the public trust to hear all sides, from committees that includes various viewpoints, and will come to a consensus which seeks a win-win solution.  In my opinion, this has not happened in the current situation at Dover Area School District.

As one who believes in reconciliation I had hoped that more time would have been given by the board to consider a solution on this Intelligent Design issue that could have addressed concerns of all parties.  On this basis, I believe differing opinions could have come to an informed and enlightened decision.  Such reasonableness would have been far preferable to the legal entanglements that have fractured the community. 

The many issues outlined above and which we are discussing this evening, have big implications in relation to religion and governance.   I believe the ACLU has a tiger by the tail   DON’T LET GO !! 

 Conclusion
Nearly 200 Wisconsin clergy want school officials in Grantsburg, WI to assure that evolution remains at the center of scientific teaching in the schools.  The pastors want evolution to be treated “the same as all scientific theories and not singled out for special scrutiny,”  says Michael Zimmerman, Dean of the College of Letters & Science at the Univerity of Wisconsin-Oshkosh.  This was reported in the St. Paul Pioneer Press, St. Paul, MN on Dec 17, 2004.

I believe the text of the letter from the 200 pastors informs the situation that we are addressing this evening:

“Within the community of Christian believers, there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture.  While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook.  Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the creation, Adam & Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation.  Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth.  Its purpose is not to convey information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist.  We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rest.  To reject this truth or to treat it as ‘one theory among others’ is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmits such ignorance to our children.  We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator.  To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris (of pride).  We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge.  We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complimentary, forms of truth.