Eugenie Scott on Hardball

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

A debate is raging across several states in America about how to teach the beginnings of Earth and mankind. Proponents of intelligent design believe that evolution, Darwinism, is incomplete and that a higher power is at work and should be taught in public schools. Opponents believe there‘s no credible scientific evidence to back up intelligent design and that it‘s a religious point of view which has no place in public schools.

Reverend Terry Fox of Wichita‘s Immanuel Baptist Church is involved in a fight in Kansas to change that state‘s curriculum to include intelligent design. Eugenie C. Scott is the executive director of the National Center For Science Education, which defends the exclusive teaching of evolution in public schools.

Reverend Fox, why are we debating the why—or why aren‘t we debating the why of creation, rather than the how? What‘s so important about the how?

REV. TERRY FOX, IMMANUEL BAPTIST CHURCH: Well, the how is important, Chris, because a lot of people out there are very interested in this subject.

For a long, long time, one side has been taught in public schools. And, you know, Chris, if you poll the American people, you find that all people out there believe that we came from somewhere. Now, the question, where do we come from? The interesting thing is, the majority of people in America happen to believe that God created men and therefore God has a purpose for mankind.

What we‘re saying is, we believe that the side that the majority people hold, the view that the majority hold is that God created man. And all we‘re asking for is that people be given the right to discuss both sides of the issue and that students be able to look at both sides, instead of just evolution that has been taught exclusively all these years in public school.

MATTHEWS: But I went to a religious school where the teacher said to us at the beginning of biology class the first day—and this is a religious, Christian school—that you‘re entitled to believe in creationism if you want. We‘re going to be teaching evolution here. And that‘s in the context of Christianity.

So, why isn‘t it done that—why isn‘t that the right way to do it? Why do you have to have religious context presented throughout the discussions of science?

FOX: Well, because I think that the Bible speaks very plainly and clearly about the origin of man.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: But why do you have to keep reminding students of that in a science class? You can simply say that up front. We all believe this, that this is how God did it and then proceed from there in a scientific fashion.

FOX: Because I think there‘s a lot of science taught in creation and intelligent design.

You know, Chris, just because we believe that God made man and God created us, it doesn‘t mean that we‘re intelligent or there‘s not a lot of science involved. When you think about evolution, you see all the false teachings of evolution. Most of it has never been proven and it will not stand on solid ground. And true intellectualism, Chris, why not offer both? Why not say, OK, if creationism is a legitimate view held by I believe the majority of people—certainly the majority of people in America do believe that God created us—what‘s wrong with presenting both views and letting the students decide which one they want to believe?

MATTHEWS: I guess because I don‘t see the dispute between creationism and evolution. I don‘t understand why there are different points of view. One is that God created the Earth. He did it through evolution.

FOX: Well, then, let me ask you this, Chris. Then, why is there such an outcry of even saying in the textbooks that evolution is a theory, not a fact? Even if you try to put a sticker in a textbook and you say, much of this is not even proven, the liberals and the left go completely crazy.

And I believe the reason is, they‘re afraid to give the students both ideas and let the students choose which side they want to believe.

MATTHEWS: Let‘s go to the other side of this argument.

Eugenie C. Scott, what is your view about including this religious information in a science class?

EUGENIE C. SCOTT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER FOR SCIENCE

EDUCATION: Well, I think you put your finger right on the problem, Chris.

You expressed one Christian position, which is called theistic evolution. That‘s the view that God created through the process of evolution. There are many forms of theistic evolution. Reverend Fox expressed another Christian position, which is called special creation, which is, God created everything all at one time in its present form.

Now, Reverend Fox was talking about teaching both. There‘s more than two. And we haven‘t even exhausted Christianity, much less all the other possible religions of the world. And I think the question that we really ought to be asking is, what are we supposed to be teaching in high school science class? Because that‘s what this issue is really all about. And what we should be teaching in high school science class is the consensus view of science, which is that living things have common ancestors.

And we know some mechanisms that bring this about. And we have some ideas about the pattern, that this change through time took place. This is what we should be teaching.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Reverend Fox, is that—I don‘t want...

(CROSSTALK)

SCOTT: Not religious views masquerading as science.

MATTHEWS: I don‘t want Eugenie to put words in your mouth.

Reverend Fox, do you believe that everything we see on Earth today, in terms of the species, the kingdoms, the families of animals, that all of them are as they were millions of years ago? Do you believe that?

FOX: I really don‘t. And I think there‘s—I really don‘t believe that. And I think a lot of people don‘t believe it.

There‘s a lot of discussion about how old the Earth is and different theories of that. You know, it‘s bigger than that. She talks about, well, there‘s different views of creationism. What we‘d like to say is, let‘s present some of these views to the students. I mean, when you look at evolution, you find 1,000 different views of evolution. So, there‘s not just one view of evolution. And so, I think her argument is unfounded.

SCOTT: Well, that‘s actually not...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Do you believe in the begets, the begets in the Old Testament in Genesis adding up to the present time? Do you believe that that string of marriages in children reflects the true history of man going back to Adam?

FOX: Chris, I believe every single word in the Bible. I don‘t understand all of it, but I believe all of it. And I believe most Americans believe most of the Bible.

MATTHEWS: No, the specificity of those—of that generation of mankind, going back from Adam to the times of the Old Testament, do you believe that that accounts for the history of man?

FOX: I believe that you can trace the history of the man through the Bible, absolutely.

MATTHEWS: Literally through those generational developments?

FOX: I believe that. I believe that the Bible is...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: All right, that‘s fine. I‘m just trying to find out.

FOX: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Because I think, if you do the math, it doesn‘t add up to all the millions of years of man‘s existence.

But, Eugenie, what do you think is the harm of teaching some religious theory, along with the scientific theory?

SCOTT: I think there‘s nothing wrong with teaching comparative religion. I think we should know more about religion, just as we should know more about science.

But what we‘re talking about is, what do you teach in a science class? People on my side of this issue are perfectly happy to have religion described. But that‘s not what is going on. They want to advocate a specific religious view and pretend that it‘s science. That just simply is not good education.

MATTHEWS: Do you believe that everything we live—do you think our lives, who we are, the world around us, was an accident of some explosion millions of years ago and it led to everything we see? Do you believe it was all just natural selection or just an accident of scientific development?

SCOTT: Well, I‘m talking about what we teach in the high school science class.

MATTHEWS: What do you believe? What do you believe?

SCOTT: Who cares? Who cares what Genie Scott believes? That‘s, you know...

MATTHEWS: I‘m asking you. That‘s what...

SCOTT: My own personal philosophy?

MATTHEWS: I‘m curious. I‘m curious.

FOX: Chris, there‘s the point.

MATTHEWS: Do you believe it was all just one big accident?

SCOTT: It is...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I don‘t think most people believe it was one big accident. It‘s hard to imagination the sophistication and dynamics and wonder of this world was just an accident. Some grenade went off two or three million years ago and everything happened. It just boggles the mind that it‘s the case.

SCOTT: And many Christians believe that God had a hand.

FOX: Chris, that‘s exactly—exactly what you are saying.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I‘m sorry. We have to continue. This is worth a lot more than 10 minutes.

FOX: But the question is, what do we teach in science class?

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I would love to get back to this. We‘ll get back to this.

Thank you both. I‘m sorry for keeping it short. But I have to.

FOX: Thanks, Chris. It was good to be here.

MATTHEWS: Eugenie Scott, thank you very much for coming in.

Reverend Terry Fox, thank you.

When we come back, Thomas Friedman will be here to explain why he believes the world is flat, speaking of evolution.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: Coming up, Pulitzer Prize winner and best-selling author Thomas Friedman will be here to explain why he thinks globalization has made the world flat—when HARDBALL returns.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7602221/