As a parent concerned about the quality of public education in Utah, I was relieved that Utah had stayed out of the "controversy" surrounding evolution. Until recently, Utah was content to let this battle brew in other states and watch other school boards make fools of themselves on the national stage. But if Rep. Chris Buttars and the Eagle Forum have their way, Utah could soon rival Kansas for the title of "Most Embarrassing State."

Our education system is increasingly stratified with fewer resources. As such, it is unconscionable that our legislators would waste the public's time with the suggestion that Intelligent Design should be included in the public school science curriculum. Many parents and educators in Utah believe this proposal is incredibly misguided. Intelligent Design is not science. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think science should be taught in science class.

Buttars has said that "only atheists" will have a problem with the introduction of Intelligent Design into Utah's classrooms. He is wrong. Of course atheists and agnostics would be dismayed — and offended by Buttars' implication that their opinions are irrelevant — but people of many different religious faiths accept evolution.

Perhaps Buttars is not familiar with the fact that the Roman Catholic Church accepts evolution as "a valid scientific theory" with a great body of evidence to support it. In 1987, the Central Council of Rabbis voiced strong opposition to the teaching of creationism or any other religious dogma in the classroom. The LDS Church has also maintained a sensible position on this issue, essentially advocating that the fields of geology, biology and anthropology should be left to scientific research.

Many mainstream religions have no problem with evolution. Evolution is not in conflict with their belief in God. At the heart of evolutionary biology is the fact all life on Earth has a common origin. What is so threatening about that?

In contrast, the entire concept of Intelligent Design is based on denying evolution. Some fundamentalist sects of Christianity assume that if there is also natural or scientific explanation for how humans came into existence, that would mean God does not exist. These people try to cast doubt on Darwin because, in their minds, evolution is somehow threatening to the existence of their version of God.

If one's faith in God is so fragile that it disintegrates when confronted by the fact that there is a scientific explanation for the origins of life, then perhaps such faith needs to be re-examined. Science can tell us how human beings came into existence. It cannot tell us why. That is where religion comes in.

Science is a tool for understanding the natural world. It is not a tool for understanding the spiritual world. Science and religion do not have to be mutually exclusive, but they should each be taught in their appropriate environments.

To teach anything other than evolution to Utah students is to do our students a great disservice. Public schools funded with taxpayer dollars from all of us — atheists included — should not be picking sides as to which religious views are valid and which are not. There are several places where people can go to discuss God, the meaning of life, religion, the supernatural, or Intelligent Design.

Those places include a church or in seminary, a synagogue, temple or mosque. But there is only one place where all of Utah's public school students can learn the scientific method. That place is in the classroom.

---

Monica Bellenger is a Utah mother and writer.