Evolution or creationism?

September 25, 2005

JOEL DAVIDSON/Frontiersman reporter

WASILLA - The debate of whether to teach evolution or creation in public schools has continued to rage in education circles for more than a century. While the terms of the conversation have shifted considerably over the years, a basic ideological struggle persists.

Thursday night's Mat-Su School Board forum in Wasilla was a case in point.

Sitting in the Alaska Club theater in Wasilla, six Mat-Su School Board candidates told roughly 40 audience members they thought evolution should be taught in public school science classes. Two of the candidates, however, said intelligent design and/or creationism also had a place in public education.

The evolution/creation debate is nothing new in America.

Eighty years ago, the famous 1925 Tennessee v. Scopes "Monkey Trial" took place. That debate centered on whether evolution should be barred from public schools.

The trial captured the nation's imagination as a three-time Democratic candidate for president, William Jennings Bryant, argued against famous defense attorney Clarence Darrow that Tennessee should ban evolution from its schools.

While Bryant technically won the case, in the years following, most public schools across the nation adopted the teaching of evolution. It is now considered a science standard.

In the last few years, however, a growing number of school boards around the country have wrestled with the idea of intelligent design, the idea that the universe is designed and guided by an intelligent being. Many argue it should also be taught in public schools alongside evolution.

On Thursday evening, the national debate landed at the Alaska Club.

"I think you can teach both of them," said Cheryl Turner, who is running against Mike Chmielewski and Neal Lacy for Seat E. Turner said the courses could be offered as electives or religious studies courses.

Chmielewski agreed.

"Schools that have done this well have done it by teaching evolution in science class and creationism in social studies and religious studies classes," he said. "I believe, at the present time, that is where it is appropriate."

Neal Lacy, also a Seat E candidate, disagreed.

"Do I believe there is a higher power? Yes. Do I believe we should be teaching that in the public schools? No. I believe it violates the separation of church and state - simple as that."

While all three candidates for Seat D admitted to personal belief in a Creator, they said those are religious beliefs and have no place in public schools.

"I believe that evolution is definitely a science subject and it should be taught in science," said Pat Purcell. "There are places in the school systems where if you have a religious school you can teach religion in that school.

"In the public schools, however, the place for your beliefs in God or your creator, whatever religion you are, should be handled at home."

Fellow Seat D candidates Mary Anderson and John Fairfield held similar views.

"Evolutionary theory is a theory of science," Fairfield argued. "Creationism and its cousin, intelligent design, are statements of faith - they are two different things. I think our science should be strictly that - it should teach what is accepted science. I myself believe that there is a creator who made the world that we see, but I accept that as a belief, not as an issue of science, and because of that I don't think it should be taught in our public schools."

Contact Joel Davidson at

352-2266, or joel.davidson@ frontiersman.com.