The Salt Lake Tribune OPINION Sunday, January 29, 2006 AA7_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________

Let’s teach science in the science classroomScience is, in simplest terms,

a method of explaining the natu-ral world. It’s a problem-solvingprocess requiring not only anopen mind but also hardevidence.

New scientific discoveries,based on such evidence, gettranslated into improved under-standing of distant planets andhuman origins, and into treat-ments for illness, disease-resistant crops and safer motorvehicles. Science and technologyprovide the basis of industrialinnovation and the economicprosperity of the future.

Because our commitment toscience has brought such enor-mous benefits to Americans andother people throughout theworld, it has been extremelytroubling to watch recent attackson the teaching of evolution sci-ence in places such as Dover, Pa.,and the state of Kansas.

Now lawmakers in Utah areproposing a similar measure. Itnever mentions God or Intelli-gent Design, but it would en-courage students to doubt thescience of evolution and perpet-uate the myth that evolution ischallenged by “opposing scien-tific viewpoints.”

Too often, this controversy isframed in the news media andamong hard-core partisans as adisagreement between scienceand religion. Proponents of evo-lution have an “imposing viewthat we can’t have a belief inGod,” Utah Sen. Sheldon Kill-pack, R-Syracuse, claimed dur-ing a recent debate.

That’s untrue. In fact sciencehas no interest in attacking reli-gion or trying to underminefaith. Science and faith have dif-ferent domains: Science seeks

natural explanations of how lifedeveloped over millions of years;religion, guided by faith, seeksthe spiritual meaning, the pur-pose of life.

Many scientists are religious,and thousands of U.S. religiousleaders from every creed and de-nomination have testified thatthey see no conflict betweentheir faith and evolution.

But when religion tries to castitself as science, as happens inthe Intelligent Design (ID)movement, the arguments getdistorted. ID advocates andother opponents of evolution in-sist that their motivations arenot religious, and their efforts tochange school curriculumsrarely mention God. And yet, theID movement’s 1999 “WedgeDocument” pledged to promote“a science consonant withChristian . . . convictions.”

While they insist their inter-ests are purely scientific, theyhave not joined the scientificprocess. They have not submit-ted their evidence or publishedtheir studies in mainstream sci-entific journals. They insist thatevolution is unproven, “just a

theory,” never noting that in sci-ence, unlike in popular usage, atheory is a unified, evidence-based explanation of how thingswork.

And they insist that scientistsare deeply divided by contro-versy over evolution; in fact,aside from a few fringe research-ers, the scientific establishmentoverwhelmingly accepts evolu-tion.

Yes, there are gaps in evolu-tion science — but isn’t that thenature of all human knowledge?Not so long ago, our ancestorsbelieved that sun revolvedaround the Earth, or that illnessshould be treated with leeches.It’s the job of science to fill thosegaps.

The sponsor of the Utah bill,Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jor-dan, is among those who claimthat science somehow erodeshuman dignity. “That professorthey brought in . . . talking about(how) we evolved from chimpan-zees, he don’t know that,” But-tars said in one recent news ac-count.

Yet the evidence of evolution— not just human evolution, butof all living creatures — is over-whelming. Scientists working inUtah and around the world have

amassed tons of fossil evidence.Other recent discoveries showthe close genetic relationshipsbetween chimps, humans andeven the simplest forms of cellu-lar life.

U.S. District Judge John E.Jones III listened to the argu-ments against evolution lastyear in Dover, Pa., and in theend, he saw through the spin.Intelligent Design is fundamen-tally a religious doctrine, heconcluded, and cannot be taughtas science in public schools.

The Utah measure is proofthat this issue still divides usand distracts us. That’s unfortu-nate, because the times call forunity and common purpose.

America faces unprecedentedchallenges — to protect our na-tional security, to find new en-ergy sources and to defendagainst diseases such as avianflu. And at a time of mountingeconomic challenges fromaround the globe, we must do allwe can to train the young scien-tists, engineers, technicians andmedical professionals who willcompete to make groundbreak-ing discoveries in the yearsahead.

This has been recognized inrecent months not only by

scientists and engineers, but byacademic and business leaders,Republicans and Democrats, allof whom are urging a renewedcommitment to science educa-tion in our country. We need awell-educated workforce to allowus to compete in the world’s sci-ence and technology-based econ-omy of the future.

We can’t afford to discourageor confuse our children. Scienceclassrooms are where we culti-vate the mindset of discovery

that benefits millions of peopleworldwide and where we trainthe workers of tomorrow. Thechallenge is not to bring religioninto those classrooms, but toteach science better than ever,with new imagination andenergy. ———

Alan I. Leshner is the CEO ofthe American Association for theAdvancement of Science and ex-ecutive publisher of the journalScience.

Alan I. Leshner—