Now, at another landmark trial in Pennsylvania, the roles have been reversed — but the passion on both sides of the science-religion schism is just as strong.

At issue this time is whether the Dover Area School Board can require teachers to read a statement on "intelligent design" before high school biology classes on evolution. Proponents of intelligent design argue that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent cause and that natural selection can’t fully explain how life originated or how complex life forms emerged.

Under a policy approved by the school board last fall, students must hear a brief statement about intelligent design before classes on evolution. The statement says Darwin’s widely accepted theory, which holds that life, including humans, evolved from a common ancestor over billions of years, is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps." It also refers students to an intelligent design textbook for more information. Eleven families sued the school district, saying the policy violates the constitutional separation of church and state by promoting the Bible’s view of creation. The trial began Sept. 26.

The case has raised some interesting and complicated questions — not so much about the origin of life, but rather, about who should decide what’s taught in public schools, where the line between church and state should be drawn, and whether "teaching the controversy" will undermine science education.

I believe we should teach the controversy — but not necessarily in science class.

When it comes to establishing a science curriculum, scientists, not school board members, should decide what students need to know. Darwin’s theory of evolution is accepted by the vast majority of scientists and all the nation’s major scientific institutions. Like any scientific theory, it will continue to be studied and tested.

Science teachers should not be required to mention intelligent design as an "alternative" to evolution. However, they should have the freedom to bring up the intelligent-design debate during discussions on evolution without fear of being sued.

After all, challenges to the theory of evolution are, in fact, being debated, and not just in a federal courtroom. A handful of scientists who support intelligent design have published position papers and books, and defended their theories at public debates and in scientific journals. Why should students be sheltered from the debate? Part of studying science is having an open mind, and learning is not just about acquiring knowledge, but also putting it in a historical and philosophical context.

Consider, too, the fact that many Americans do not believe evolution and intelligent design are mutually exclusive. That is, they believe life did evolve over billions of years, but some sort of creator had a hand in it.

They respect the role of science in understanding the natural world but do not believe it will ever be able to explain everything.

There is no quick fix in this debate. Putting a sticker that says evolution is "a theory, not a fact" on a science textbook doesn’t accomplish anything, nor does a ban on any discussion of challenges to Darwin’s theory.

Clearly, this will not be the last church-and-state court case, and religion will continue to be an emotional and divisive issue — not just at small-town school board meetings, but throughout the world.

Maybe the requirement our schools really need is a religion/philosophy class in which students learn about the history and core beliefs of all of the world’s religions. They could study all the wars that have been fought in the name of religion, write essays about ways in which religion has influenced literature, art and public policy, and have debates about how faith and science might intersect. Maybe if people had a better understanding of religious beliefs that differ from their own, it wouldn’t be so difficult to find a common ground.

Of course, a required religion class in a public school would have to stand up to tremendous legal scrutiny. Just getting the powers-that-be to agree on which religions could be included would be an ordeal. As for textbooks, guest speakers and field trips — well, it might take another 80 years to reach a consensus.

In the meantime, I hope the Dover case is at least being discussed during the current events portion of high school social studies classes.

————

Lisa Miller is a freelance writer who lives in Oneonta. She can be reached at lisamiller44@hotmail.com.