A legal group that specializes in issues relating to
religious liberty said it would consider taking legal action against a Colorado
public school district if the school board decides to introduce creationism
into its science classes.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State said it will consider suing
the Liberty School District in Joes, Colo., if the school opts to teach
creationism when it meets to vote on the issue Tuesday.
The five-member board, which represents a school of about 100 students in a
farm community on the eastern plains of Colorado, is contemplating a proposal
by Rev. Douglas Sanford, a school board member who is also a Baptist minister.
Sanford called for the adoption of a new policy called "Creation
Science/Evolution Science Education" that would require the district to
give "balanced treatment" between evolution and creationism in
science classes.
"We didn't want to teach religion - I am opposed to teaching religion in
school - all we wanted to do was to bring in some information about creation
science," Sanford told CNSNews.com.
"By 'creation science' I do not mean teaching God, I do not mean teaching
Adam and Eve, I do not mean teaching any of those things, but I mean to teach
that instead of everything happening by chance, that there was design to our
universe, to our world, to our human body."
But attorneys for Americans United say the policy is patently unconstitutional
and if enacted, will almost certainly bring about litigation.
Steve Benen, a spokesman for the group, said the theory of evolution is more
than a "hunch" or a series of "assumptions," but rather is
an explanation of natural phenomena built on testable observations and
hypotheses.
The suggestion that creationism and evolution are somehow equal because they're
both "theories" is to make a mockery of science, he said.
"That is not an accurate reflection of what theories are in the scientific
community," Benen said.
"There is as much evidence to support the theory of evolution as there is
the theory of gravity, and we're not teaching kids in public schools that maybe
gravity is true and maybe gravity isn't true, it's only a theory," he
argued.
Moreover, opponents of the teaching of creationism as science have the law on
their side, Benen said.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1968 that a 1929 Arkansas statute prohibiting
the teaching of evolution was unconstitutional. In 1987, the Court ruled
unconstitutional a 1981 Louisiana "balanced treatment" law requiring
the teaching of creation "science" in public schools whenever
evolution is taught.
But Sanford argued that the Supreme Court also ruled that "'teaching a
variety of scientific theories about the origins of mankind to schoolchildren
might be done with the clear, secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of
science instruction.'"
"Our intent is to teach science," Sanford said. "It specifically
says in our policy, 'no Bible will be used.' We're not teaching any
religion."
As a possible alternative to teaching creationism in science classes, critics
have suggested that schools should examine incorporating different religious
approaches to life's origins in comparative religion class, or a social studies
class.
At issue in Colorado is a science class teaching non-scientific principles,
Benen said.
Sanford said, however, the Joes school was too small with too few resources to
set up additional classes.