[Author’s Name]
[Institution’s Name]
Essay on Human Evolution
Intelligent Design (ID) has just as much scientific proof, much more in fact, than evolutionism. And Darwinism indeed has just as many religious implications as ID. While I do not agree with evolutionistic views, I think that ID needs to be taught along with evolution in public schools. Judge Jones was incorrect in his thoughts on this matter. To cap Darwin Day 1998, Cornell University historian of biology William Provine was the keynote speaker but not the only major name in evolution drawn to Knoxville for the celebration. (Edward J. Larson 1997) On Darwin Day eve, high school teachers were invited for a training session that included Eugenie Scott, a midwesterner who was director of the National Center for Science Education near Berkeley, California, the leading anticreationist group.
Creationism, she explained in her overview, evolves strategically. Once calling itself “creation science” or “abrupt appearance” theory, it may now show up as a demand for textbook disclaimers that evolution “is only a theory” or a request that the “intelligent design” idea be included in classroom biology. She and Provine are peerless as naturalists in science who promote the grand theme of evolution. But at the Knoxville crossroads, they parted ways on how evolutionists should deal with America's religious culture, its populist politics, and the uneasy status of scientific elites.
Scott represents the first approach. By 2000 she had spent a quarter century in this debate and had worked closely with science and educational groups, from the National Academy of Sciences to state teachers' unions. She tells them that in America people cannot be forced to make an “either-or choice” between religious belief and evolution. “That's part of my message to scientists,” she said. “You have to allow people to accommodate their religious views to science; otherwise science is going to lose its attraction......
