Dave Eaton and Intelligent Design

Timeline

 

Dave Eaton of the Minnetonka School Board has been Minnesota’s most vocal advocate for teaching Intelligent Design in public school science classrooms.

 

Spring/summer 2003 – Minnetonka School Board Member Dave Eaton is appointed to the Minnesota State Science Standards Committee (committee numbers about 50 people)
 

July 31, 2003    Science Committee begins work.  For a description of the MN Science Standards process written by two of the Science Standards Committee members, see here.

 

September 2003  Mr. Eaton travels to Willmar, MN (the only Science Standards Committee member to do so) to testify at a town hall meeting, with MN Education Commissioner Yecke present, that Intelligent Design or “the controversy about evolution” should be included in the state science standards to be taught in Minnesota schools.  Paul Z. Myers, PhD, biology professor at the University of Minnesota-Morris was there, and gave his permission via e-mail to use his account of the proceedings:

I attended the town hall meeting to discuss the draft Minnesota Science Standards in Willmar, MN. The audience (and, as it turns out, the Department of Education members on the podium) was overwhelmingly creationist and vocal. A few of us science & reason types did get up to speak, but it was to a chorus of disapproval from the audience, while the creationist speakers got a chorus of amens, instead.

Anyway, for the record, here's what I said:

   I'm a biology professor at the University of Minnesota, so I should mention that I have a different perspective from many of the public school teachers here: I don't have to worry about the details of implementing these standards, but only have to think about the end product. With that in mind, there are a couple of things I have to say about the science standards.
   The good news is that I think these are excellent standards, and the committee has done a great job. I would be more than pleased to have students show up in my classrooms understanding this material.
   However, while I think the standards are good, I have serious concerns about how the department of education seems to be speaking about them. I have suspicions that there will be an attempt to make an end run around the work of the committee.
   In particular, Commissioner Yecke is on record stating that

   I disagree strongly with all three comments.
   First, there is no controversy on this subject. Let me repeat that: there is no controversy over evolution. None. The theory of evolution represents the best consensus of the scientific community. Saying that there is controversy here is like stating that there is a controversy over whether the moon is made of green cheese or not. There is no viable scientific theory of creation or intelligent design.
   The Santorum amendment is not law. It was little more than an attempt to con a willing and gullible politician into inserting creationist language into an education bill. It was stripped from the final bill and cannot be used to justify opening up our schools to creationism.
   Finally, intelligent design cannot be considered science. I would like to bring one of the science standards in this document to your attention. On page 22, it says, "Students will know that scientific explanations must meet criteria to be considered valid, including that they must be consistent with experimental and observational evidence about nature, logical, respect the rules of evidence, be open to criticism, and report methods and procedures." Intelligent design violates all these principles. It does not meet proper scientific criteria, it is not consistent with any experimental or observational evidence, it is illogical, it dispenses with evidence, it is not open to criticism, and it does not have any methods or procedures to report. By these standards, it cannot be taught as science.
   I have to ask why Commissioner Yecke is trying to subvert this document and the good work of the committee by encouraging political action to insert garbage into the minds of my prospective students.

   Yecke did not answer the questions. She reiterated that it was a controversy, she wanted to avoid the bad press of Kansas and Ohio, and that Santorum's amendment was published and on the record.
   One member of the science committee was also there, Dave Eaton. He said that 1) microevolution was an indisputable fact, but macroevolution and origins were contentious, 2) that more and more scientists were accepting the theory of intelligent design, and 3) that intelligent design was now being taught in classes at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities. Sound familiar? These are classic lines of argument from intelligent design creationists. I've since confirmed that Eaton, a member of the science standards committee, is an active promoter of ID, who has also worked to get it introduced into his local school district in Minnetonka. (Eaton's claims have been debunked on Mark Isaak's excellent "Index to Creationist Claims", a very handy resource...except for the one about it being taught at UMTC. That's just a plain, outright, dishonest distortion: there is apparently a seminar taught by a professor of engineering on the subject, but you can find a crank or three in every large university -- and it is not being taught as a serious element of the biology curriculum, as I suspect Eaton was trying to imply.)
   I really have to appreciate the hard work the other members of the committee had to go through to generate a good set of science standards.


November 2003    The Minnesota State Science Standards Committee finishes its work and sends the final report to Commissioner Yecke. There was very little debate on most of the material, but ID proponents, including Mr. Eaton, sought to insert language weakening the standards/benchmarks relating to the theory of evolution.  (This information confirmed by Dr. Melanie Reap of Winona State University and Mr. Jamie Crannell, Chaska High School Chemistry teacher; both were members of the MN Science Standards Committee.)

 

December 7, 2003   Mr. Eaton authors a Minority Report with 3 others, dissenting from the Science Standards Committee; the report is addressed and delivered to Commissioner Yecke, and to the Minneapolis Star Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press.

View the Minority Report

December 2003, Minnesota Public Radio covers Commissioner Yecke unveiling the MN science and social studies standards.  Mr. Eaton is quoted:
Some science teachers said too many requirements would leave little time for experiments and lab work. And four members of the science committee submitted a minority report expressing concern about the language on evolution.
   One of the four is Dave Eaton, an engineer and Minnetonka School Board member, who says students should know that there is scientific criticism of key aspects of evolutionary theory, even though the biblical theory of creationism isn't being taught.
   "We are very clear in our document that we're not advocating creationism. We're interested in accurate science, and creationism gets into things based on Scripture, and that's not something that belongs in the science classroom," he said.
 

January 2004   Mr. Eaton appeared at MN Legislature Education hearings with John Calvert, an attorney for IDNetwork and Robert Frey, a Young Earth Creationist, of Creation Science Seminars; they advocated for the inclusion of Intelligent Design and related concepts in the Minnesota Science Standards.

Read John Calvert’s Memorandum to Members of the MN Senate Education Committee

 

John Calvert’s account of his testimony at the MN Legislature; he explains he was invited from out of state by parents of public school students:

 

Dave Eaton presented a Power Point about the Minority Report.

When asked by legislators if the minority report was offered to the whole standards committee, Dave Eaton said some recommendations were discussed at length, but “we couldn’t come to agreement.” 

Questioned again, was the minority report submitted to the whole committee? Mr. Eaton said it had been submitted to Commissioner Yecke. 

Question: You state in the Minority Report that the suggestions offered by the minority were “ignored by the committee” yet you just stated there was significant discussion; explain. 

Mr. Eaton: by “ignored” we mean “wasn’t put into the standards.”

Tom Fish interjected at this point to explain that the entire committee did indeed reject suggestions related to ID in a session he chaired; the writing committee (which met after agreement was reached on the content of standards) also rejected the Minority Report suggestions in a lengthy and detailed discussion; the teachers on the committee specifically rejected the Minority Report language and the committee agreed with the judgment of the teachers.

 Mr. Frey testifies that rising societal violence is equated with the teaching of evolution; he brought his plastic replica of a femur bone from a giant human, which he believes shows that humans lived with dinosaurs at the beginning of creation. Mr. Frey argued that nothing in science came about without the intervention of a divine creator.

Several people associated with EdWatch/EdAction www.edwatch.org also testified in favor of the Minority Report/Intelligent Design: Julie Quist, Mike Chapman, Yvonne Boldt, Karen Effrem, Jean Swenson

The above information on the Education Hearings was obtained from the notes and recollections of several people in attendance at the MN Legislative hearings, including Ed Hessler of Hamline University, verified by TonkaFocus in October 2005.


February 2004   Private citizens commissioned a poll from the Zogby organization in New York, which was conducted in MN on February 13 & 14, 2004.

In his April 24, 2005 Star Tribune article (links included here - scroll down) Mr. Eaton refers to this poll as “conducted during the development of the state science standards”.  In fact, this privately paid for and privately developed poll was conducted weeks after the final draft of the standards, and seems meant to influence the MN Legislature as they considered the science standards.

 

March 10, 2004   Mr. Eaton is a featured speaker at an education rally sponsored by EdWatch at the Minnesota State Capitol.  He urged the passage of the citizen’s standards for Social Studies and the minority report on the Science standards.

The Mission Statement of EdWatch begins “EdWatch is committed to educating the public about the unprecedented movement of the U.S. workforce, the U.S. economy and the entire education system toward a centrally planned and controlled federal system.”  www.edwatch.org

 

May 16, 2004   The Minnesota Legislature, on the last day of the session, voted to adopt the Science Standards of the original committee from November 2003. The standards do not include provisions to teach Intelligent Design.

But Mr. Eaton and other ID proponents maintain that there is an opening for “teaching the controversy about evolution” or “teaching scientific alternatives to evolution” or other concepts related to Intelligent Design and Creationism in parts 2 & 5 of this standard, italicized below:

Grade level 9-12; Strand: History and Nature of Science; Sub-Strand: Scientific World View; Standard: The student will understand the nature of scientific ways of thinking and that scientific knowledge changes and accumulates over time. Benchmarks: 1.The student will be able to distinguish among hypothesis, theory and law as scientific terms and how they are used to answer a specific question.  2. The student will be able to explain how scientific and technological innovations as well as new evidence can challenge portions of or entire accepted theories and models including but not limited to cell theory, germ theory of disease and big bang theory.  3. The student will recognize that in order to be valid, scientific knowledge must meet certain criteria including that it: be consistent with experimental, observational and inferential evidence about nature; follow rules of logic and reporting both methods and procedures; and, be falsifiable and open to criticism.  4. The student will explain how traditions of ethics, peer review, conflict and general consensus influences the conduct of science.  5. The student will recognize that some scientific ideas are incomplete, and opportunity exists in these areas for new advances.

 

November 22, 2004   Mr. Eaton travels to Grantsburg, Wisconsin to speak to their school board as an expert on Intelligent Design from the Minnetonka School Board ; his presentation included the Discovery Institute’s DVD “Icons of Evolution.”  On June 28, 2004, the Grantsburg school board had passed a motion “to direct our science department to teach all theories of origins.”  This June 2004 school board decision continues to divide the Grantsburg community, according to residents.

Account of the meeting in the Burnett County Sentinel, Grantsburg’s local paper.

Reports from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel online here and here.

 

February – March 2005   Mr. Eaton advertised himself as both a graduate of Chuck Colson’s Centurion program and a Minnetonka School Board member when he presented an adult faith forum on “Biblical World View” at Westwood Community Church in Chanhassen.  The article on the Westwood Church web site was accessed on 3-12-05 but is no longer available. Chuck Colson’s Centurion program instructs participants to “shape our culture by thinking, teaching and advocating effectively the Christian worldview applied to all of life.” 

 

April 24, 2005   Minneapolis Star Tribune devotes most of its Op Ed section to evolution. Dave Eaton wrote an article for this, “Students Should Learn the Weak Points of Evolutionary Theory, Too.”  The article is not available in the Star Tribune archives but the full article can be read on the Discovery Institute’s web site.

 

October 2005,  Michael Zimmerman, Dean of the College of Letters and Sciences at University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh has collected 8,800 signatures of clergy who support the teaching of evolution.

He began his campaign to get 10,000 members of the clergy to sign this letter because of the threat to science education raised by Mr. Eaton in Grantsburg.

    For too long, the misperception that science and religion are inevitably in conflict has created unnecessary division and confusion, especially concerning the teaching of evolution. I wanted to let the public know that numerous clergy from most denominations have tremendous respect for evolutionary theory and have embraced it as a core component of human knowledge, fully harmonious with religious faith.
   In the fall of 2004, I worked with clergy throughout Wisconsin to prepare a statement in support of teaching evolution. We were called to action by a series of anti-evolution policies passed by the school board in Grantsburg, WI. The response was overwhelming. In a few weeks, nearly 200 clergy signed the statement, which we sent to the Grantsburg school board on December 16, 2004.
   The outpouring of support from clergy around the country encouraged me to make this a nationwide project. If you want to read more about it or join us in sharing this important perspective, click here.  Encourage your clergy to consider signing the statement and please feel free to link to these web pages.  And, while the current focus is on Christian clergy, please let me know if you are willing to write and/or host a statement from other religions.

Sincerely,

Michael Zimmerman
Dean
College of Letters and Sciences
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh

Spring 2006 - Dave Eaton is appointed to the board of Southwest Christian High School.

March 23, 2007 - Dave Eaton visits the "huddle" of Fellowship of Christian Athletes at Minnetonka Middle School West to talk to parents and children about altering their school curriculum to include biblical creationism in the form of "intelligent design." The following Monday, a parent from this group contacts a teacher at Minnetonka Middle School West and insists that a video about creationism be shown in class. The parent is told that the district follows established curriculum, which doesn't include the suggested video.

This report was compiled by TonkaFocus members from public record sources and personal interviews.

Do you have information – complementary or contradictory – which you feel belongs on this page?  Please contact us at info@tonkafocus.org

Return to TonkaFocus Home Page