Schools do not teach ‘Intelligent Design’

Last updated Sep 27, 2005 12:0pm0

Sisters secondary schools do not teach “creationism” or “intelligent design” in their science classes.

“Absolutely not,” said Sisters Middle School Principal Lora Nordquist last week. High School Principal Bob Macauley said that last year he “went in and talked to our science department to make sure of what we’re teaching and that we are in compliance (with state standards). And we are.”

He said the subject “really isn’t an issue with us” and he has received no pressure to open the science curriculum to creationism or its variations. (See related story on page 33.)

When President Bush last month endorsed the teaching of intelligent design in science classes, The Washington Post reported that, “Much of the scientific establishment says that intelligent design is not a tested scientific theory but a cleverly marketed effort to introduce religious — especially Christian — thinking to students.” The paper said a Kansas professor once called intelligent design “creationism in a cheap tuxedo.”

Nevertheless, in a long story on the subject last week, reporter James Sinks of The (Bend) Bulletin said officials of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle think tank and leading promoter of intelligent design, deny that it is religious. They say the theory does not try to say who or what the intelligent designer was.

Nordquist said the middle school does address the theory of evolution in its seventh grade life science class. “We send letters home about what are the topics being addressed and the parents can choose to have a child not participate. In my five years here we’ve never had a problem. We have had a few parents choose to have their child opt out but have never had a challenge to our science curriculum.”

Nordquist is the district curriculum coordinator as well as the middle school principal.

As for intelligent design, Nordquist said, “We have a very specific memo from the state department (of education) that says no, this is not part of state science standards in Oregon…I think it’s possible that students might express some of those views, but we do not want the science classroom to become the center of hot debate” about intelligent design.

Macauley offered a somewhat different slant: “I feel that if kids bring up creationism they can bring up different points of view and there can be a discussion.” In fact, he noted, a few years ago “ a couple of classes decided to debate evolution and creationism and that was really an exciting time in the school.”

This was 1999-2000, he recalled. It started with discussions in science classes that “spilled over.” The kids “caught onto it and had some really interesting debates about it so we did use it to extend out of the classroom. Multiple classes got involved in it, such as language arts, but it was a great learning opportunity.”

Macauley said he did not feel this violated any state guidelines. But neither he nor Nordquist knew of any non-science classes in their schools today in which the controversy over creationism or intelligent design is regularly discussed, as would appear to be permissible under the state’s rules.

Macauley did say that “if a student brings up creationism or intelligent design in science class they have the right to go ahead and talk about it…But right now we don’t have anybody planting the flag or trying to make it an issue.”

Nordquist says she does not expect Oregon to follow the example of Kansas, where the state board of education last month voted to delete evolution as a required topic in the state science curriculum. The change leaves it up to local school boards to decide whether their teachers should cover evolution, creationism/intelligent design, or neither.

“I don’t think we’re in Kansas,” Nordquist commented. “It’s not going to change in Oregon.”

State limits ‘intelligent design’ in school

George Bush and Susan Castillo do not agree about “intelligent design.” And so far, Oregon schools, including those in Sisters (see related story page 1), are siding with Castillo.

The president became part of this controversy in early August when he was asked about it at a press conference for Texas newspaper reporters. He said students should be taught about intelligent design, a view of creation that challenges established scientific thinking and the theory of evolution.

“Both sides ought to be properly taught, so people can understand what the debate is about,” he said, adding: “Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought…You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas and the answer is yes.”

The Washington Post reported: “These comments drew sharp criticism…from opponents of the (intelligent design) theory, who said there is no scientific evidence to support it and no educational basis for teaching it.”

Castillo, the Oregon superintendent of public instruction, followed her version of that line in the September issue of her departmental newsletter, the Superintendent’s Pipeline. She said the department has “received a number of questions about the teaching of ‘creationism’ and ‘intelligent design.’ These questions have increased since the president’s comment to reporters last month…”

Her newsletter repeated the essence of an e-mail memo sent to all of the state’s school superintendents in mid-August by Gene Evans, chief information officer for the department.

“The Oregon Science Content Standards adopted in April of 2001 clearly require the teaching of evolution,” Evans wrote. Both his letter and Castillo’s newsletter referred readers to a departmental handbook on science standards which, in a section on the teaching of evolution, includes an excerpt from a document published by the U.S. Department of Education. The federal statement says:

“Schools may teach about explanations of life on earth, including religious ones (such as ‘creationism’), in comparative religion or social studies classes. In science class, however, they may present only genuinely scientific critiques of, or evidence for, any explanation of life on earth, but not religious critiques (beliefs unverifiable by scientific methodology).

“Schools may not refuse to teach evolutionary theory in order to avoid giving offense to religions nor may they circumvent these rules by labeling as science an article of religious faith. Public schools must not teach as scientific fact or theory any religious doctrine, including ‘creationism,’ although any genuinely scientific evidence for or against any explanation of life may be taught.

“Just as they may neither advance nor inhibit any religious doctrine, teachers should not ridicule, for example, a student’s religious explanation of life on earth.”