October 9, 2007 forum: Question #8: Do you believe Intelligent Design has a place in our science curriculum?
Historical Note: This is a Constitutional issue for public school districts. It's not a matter of personal opinion, a moot point applicable only during curriculum review, or a point of censorship. The 2005 Dover decision defined Intelligent Design as creationism relabeled, and therefore unconstitutional:"...the [Dover] Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

ALICE EVERETT: I don’t have an opinion against or for Intelligent Design and I think that if you did have that kind of belief, which either way is fine, to take that philosophy and belief and put that as part of your agenda as a school board member is not something I would care to do.  All about facts, statistics, quantifying, that’s what I look at when I make a decision and how we’re measuring a successful program.
Historical point: After the Dover decision, ID in public school classrooms is not a matter of personal opinion - it's a Constitutional matter.

LISA WAGNER: What should be taught in the science class is science curriculum, period.  Intelligent Design, which is another word for creationism, is a faith-based philosophy.  There’s a place for that taught alongside other faith-based philosophies, but not in a science curriculum.  More important is to consider- there’s been a lot of litigation around this subject and I wouldn’t want to subject the district to going there. 

PAUL LUEHR: Family fled to America to seek religious freedom so he holds the concepts of tolerance and religious freedom very dear.  Intelligent Design is by and large a religious concept and I would not be in favor of seeing that taught in the classroom. Stick to strict facts in science.  He’s a religious person and, to the extent that we talk about science and religion, it’s a healthy discussion to have but probably does belong in the home, church, temple, or synagogue, but not in the classroom.

CAL LITSEY: Strong supporter of our science curriculum that’s based on scientific method.  We rely on our professionals and our Teaching and Learning [Dept.] curriculum. to develop the best courses we can for our kids in evolutionary biology. In terms of Intelligent Design and creationism, that’s a matter of personal and religious faith and best addressed in those environments.

KAREN WALKOWSKI: Been impressed with as school district in all sets of curriculum the rigor and testing that goes into developing new curriculum is the very rigorous process to identify it, test it, and then to improve it.  Intelligent Design has not gone through that rigor and therefore would not hold the internal testing and internal mechanisms that we already have in place for the Minnetonka School District.

DOUG ANDERSON: The question is somewhat of a moot point.  There is no action before the board regarding a change in the science curriculum.  If there were to be one that was brought forth to the board, that should go through the same type of analysis and fact finding and discussing with all the stakeholders within the district to arrive at a decision. 
Historical point: The question is not a moot point, and does not involve only official business before the board. It concerns what goes on every day in our classrooms, and whether or not teachers have the full support of the board to follow the law in teaching evolution, especially when they are pressured by parents not to do so.

BILL WENMARK: A great night of intellectual stimulation was the night that we debated that very subject of evolution, creationism, and intelligent design.  There are people on both sides of that question.  Most important thing to realize is whenever a graduate leaves Minnetonka High School is they walk out to a world that they know what’s going on.  I would not want to say that anyone walks out who doesn’t know about all these issues that are facing controversial debate. That’s what we have to do with our curriculum. Our teachers do a great job of dealing with those wonderful questions that are stimulated by our students everyday. Dealing with them in the proper way. That’s where we’ve got to leave it.  I want the kids to leave the doorway knowing what the world is and not giving any kind of censorship to anything that they are limited by the time they walk out and they don’t know what’s going on in the world. That’s what we’re doing well with our teachers. 
Historical point: Mr. Wenmark continues to portray ID as an issue of academic freedom. Minnetonka students have been, and should continue to be, free to ask their teachers challenging questions, and teachers should be free to use those questions to guide stimulating classroom discussion. This classroom dynamic does not require the alteration of science standards. Mr. Wenmark voted with board member Dave Eaton in 2005 to alter Minnetonka science standards to weaken the teaching of evolution. The board voted 5-2 to retain language in the existing standards, which fully address evolution.

For more information about the history if Intelligent Design in Minnetonka and Minnesota, see the TonkaFocus Evolution vs. Intelligent Design pages.