Evolution Education and Intelligent Design

October 2007 - Why is Intelligent Design still an issue in Minnetonka? Because we have one board member running for re-election, and two candidates, who do not understand, or who are willing to ignore the legal implications of teaching Intelligent Design and/or related concepts ("alternatives to evolution", "teach the controversy", "criticisms of evolution").
    At the October 9 forum, the responses of Doug Anderson, Alice Everett and Bill Wenmark to Question #8: Do you believe Intelligent Design has a place in our science curriculum? show that they do not see Intelligent Design as the Constitutional issue it so clearly is for a public school district.  It's not a matter of personal opinion, a moot point applicable only during curriculum review, or a point of censorship, as these three candidates stated.
    The first duty of an elected official is to understand and uphold the law. The law, based in the U.S. Constitution, is clear on this point: Public schools are required to teach evolution, are prohibited from teaching creationist concepts of any kind, and cannot portray a religious criticism of evolution as having the same scientific legitimacy as the theory of evolution.
    There is no gray area here. If a Minnetonka teacher, with or without the backing of or pressure from a school board member or parents, were to teach Intelligent Design in our science classrooms, it would expose the district to a lengthy and costly court battle. Creationism in any form has never won a U.S. court case – from Scopes in 1925 to Intelligent Design at Dover in 2005.
    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." This court decision has dangerous legal implications for school districts trying to teach religious criticisms of evolution.
    Skeptical? Look for a law firm willing to defend the Minnetonka schools in a First Amendment suit - ask how many cases they've won, ask how much the bill will be. The idea that we might be able to circumvent the law without consequences is not worthy of our community.
    Minnetonka teachers must know that they have the full support of every board member to follow the law in teaching evolution.

March 23, 2007 - The Fellowship of Christian Athletes "huddle" at Minnetonka Middle School West hosted former Minnetonka School Board member Dave Eaton 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 contacted a teacher at Minnetonka Middle School West and insisted that a video about creationism be shown in class. The parent was told that the district follows established curriculum, which doesn't include the suggested video. In December 2005, the school board voted 5-2 (Bill Wenmark and Dave Eaton opposed) not to accept Mr. Eaton's recommendation to change the science curriculum to weaken the teaching of evolution; Mr. Eaton resigned soon after and now serves on the board of Southwest Christian High School. For more information on Minnesota's science standards, visit the web site of Minnesota Citizens for Science Education.

June 6, 2007 - The College Board issued a statement regarding how evolution is to be taught in AP Biology courses: "...the College Board must specify that, in order to meet the AP Biology Audit Course Requirements, the course must treat evolution as "the foundation of modern biological models and thought. Furthermore, a biology course which purports to be "AP" cannot endorse as a scientific alternative any treatment of the origin and development of living things which conflict with the modern concepts of evolution..."  More information on the AP Biology page

2006 MnCSE - Minnesota Citizens for Science Education - is formed by science professionals and educators who came forward to protect science education in the Minnetonka school district in 2005. Please visit the MnCSE Web site.

December 20, 2005 - Federal Judge John Jones III ruled that the Dover, Pennsylvania school district's endorsement of Intelligent Design is unconstitutional. "...the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instructions elsewhere..." To read a summary of the court's decision, go here
To read the full 139 page decision, go here

December 15, 2005 Study Session and Special School Board Meeting  (see the official minutes here)  At the Study Session preceding this meeting, the Board agreed to vote on all of the science standards that evening. During Public Comments, 20 individuals spoke to the Board concerning the science standards, 13 in favor of keeping Minnetonka's standards intact, and 7 in favor of wording changes that would allow for intelligent design and related concepts. Board Member Carol Eastlund read a prepared statement showing the connections between Intelligent Design and certain sects of Christianity. The Board voted 5-2 to retain existing science standards, which include teaching the theory of evolution as the explanation for the development and diversity of life on Earth over 3+ billion years; the Minnetonka standards continue to require critical analysis of all scientific models and theories, but do not single out evolution as Mr. Eaton recommended. Although Mr. Eaton and Mr. Wenmark insisted the changes they favored were not about Intelligent Design, the vast majority of people who spoke, or who wrote to the Board - both for the changes and against them - recognized that this was indeed, about Intelligent Design.

Read a transcript of the Minnetonka School Board's December 1, 2005 discussion about whether or not Intelligent Design Creationism concepts should be included in our science curriculum.
To read the official minutes, go here.

TonkaFocus supports a proven science curriculum, including teaching evolution without the religious/philosophical - and legal - issues raised by bringing Intelligent Design/Creationism and related concepts into our science classrooms. The fascinating questions raised by Intelligent Design would make a wonderful addition to a Social Studies class or a Philosophy/Ethics elective.
In the Minnetonka schools, the 7th grade Science curriculum covers evolutionary biology, and students study it again in Biology (usually 11th or 12th grade) in high school  continue reading

December 7, 2005  The Thomas B. Fordham Institute, "The State of State Science Standards" see the full report
From pages 14 & 15 of The State of State Science Standards:
“The promoters of intelligent design creationism have perforce retreated to arguments that invoke the popular and conveniently vague educationist formula, “critical thinking.” The claim now is that evidence against “Darwinism” exists, that curriculum-makers should include it as an exercise in critical thinking, and that “freedom of speech” or “fairness” requires that they do so. The hidden agenda is to introduce doubt—any possible doubt—about evolution at the critical early stage of introduction to the relevant science. However, political assertions and public relations escapades to the contrary, no sound evidence has so far been adduced against descent with modification. In the (at least) two-billion-year history of life on this planet, evolution has been a fact”. (page 14)
“A standards document that gives evolutionary science appropriate weight, at least within biology, that introduces the main lines of evidence, including findings in the fossil record, genetics, molecular biology, and development, and that connects all this with Earth history, merits a “3.” The above, but with some big gaps, gets a “2.”  (page 15)
The Fordham Institute assigned Minnesota’s evolution coverage a score of 2, with an overall grade for our state science standards of B. (pages 45 & 46)
“The student will recognize that science and technology are influenced by cultural backgrounds and beliefs and by social needs, attitudes, values and limitations.” Yes, certainly! But the whole point of a K-12 science education is to establish beyond misgivings that there are sound practices, elaborated over more than 300 years, taken very seriously in the natural sciences, whose purpose is—precisely—to detect and eliminate biases due to “social needs, attitudes, values and limitations.” Grade: “B.”

Timeline of Minnetonka School Board Member Dave Eaton's advocacy of Intelligent Design in Minnesota science classrooms   continue reading

The Minnesota State Science Standards neither mandate nor allow the teaching of Intelligent Design or any other form of creationism, though ID proponents maintain that a strand in the History/Nature of Science standard encourages students to understand "scientific" controversy about evolution. You can download a copy of the standards (MSWord) by going to the Minnesota Department of Education web site here

TonkaFocus signed an amicus brief in Cobb County, Georgia. We also discovered a prominent scientist was misquoted in our local papers... continue reading

Do you have information - complementary or contradictory - which you feel belongs on this page?  Please e-mail info@tonkafocus.org