A Debate Without End. Amen.

The Vista Unified School District directors met Thursday night. More than 500 people showed up--even though it meant skipping the final episode of “Cheers.” To accommodate the crowd, the meeting was conducted in a borrowed gymnasium here rather than in the regular boardroom in neighboring Vista.

The draw was Agenda Item 16a: “Board Discussion of Proposed Policy 6019, Teaching Science.” Policy 6019, as drafted, proclaimed that “no theory of science shall be taught dogmatically,” that “weaknesses that substantially challenge theories in evolution should be presented,” and, finally, that “discussions of divine creation, ultimate purposes, or ultimate causes (the why) shall be included at appropriate times in the history-social sciences and/or English-language arts curricula.”

Most in the crowd came to oppose the measure, arguing that it breached the barrier between church and state and was part of a larger strategy by certain directors to push theology into public schools. A sizable minority saw it differently, making the case that evolution has its holes and, in any event, creationism deserves a place in the classroom, too.

Myself, I came for the spectacle. Things rarely get settled in these big public showdowns, and this would be no exception: After three hours of testimony and debate, the directors would fiddle a bit with the language and then ship Policy 6019 out to committee, where it won’t be seen for months. Still, it was as entertaining as “Cheers,” and without commercials.

*

Almost 40 witnesses came forward to offer two-minute orations on Policy 6019--parents, college professors, high school instructors, even a student or two. Several suggested that supporters of the proposed policy were being duped by what they consider scientific crackpots, researchers of extreme religious bent who are convinced evolution is a bogus theory.

“These people are lying to you,” a high school teacher said. “They are cloaking it in the Gospel of Jesus Christ in order to get money out of your collection plate.”

The 6019 supporters hissed.

“We have a new religion,” an advocate of the creation policy testified later. “It is secular humanism. It is ruining our country. It is ruining our kids.”

The 6019 supporters cheered.

The debate covered many chapters and much verse. Evolution was described as “voodoo science” by a speaker who insisted that, had the ACLU been around in the time of Christopher Columbus, “he would never have discovered America.” Mt. St. Helens was cited as evidence that topography can be transformed in days, just as the Book of Genesis says. One witness reminded the audience of “Henry the VIII and all that wife-beheading business,” although it wasn’t clear to me which side he was on. The 1st Amendment was read three times.

Many speakers argued that the issue was a waste of time. One listed religions that would need to be taught under the proposed policy--”To name a few: Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Confucianism, Daoism, Muslim, Sihk, Mayan. . . .” Surprisingly, not one person read from the Bible, and only one witness voiced what seemed a natural California concern: that the public school fuss over creationism was going to kill real estate prices.

*

My favorite speaker, though, was Milo Shadle. Unlike many who testified--some in tears, some in tones of rage or righteous indignation--this distinguished-looking retiree said his piece in a soft, calm voice. His two children, he began, had attended Vista schools, and so, now, does a grandchild.

“I served,” he told board members, “over 10 years on a school board. And my first thought always was not to do any harm in anything I did. I would suggest that by pushing your own personal religious agendas you are doing great harm to this district. . . . Good administrators, good teachers, will leave rather than put up with such non-educational nonsense. Money will have to be paid on litigation that could have paid the salary of many, many needed teachers.

“Your agenda has nothing whatever to do with education, but everything to do with converting young minds into your own brand of religion--whether or not their parents agree with this. We live in a multicultural society, composed of persons of many religions. Our courts recognize this and wisely will not permit you to brainwash our children. You must know that all such attempts are bound to end in failure, and costly failures at that.”

With that, he thanked the board and walked slowly back to his seat. The debate would keep going for two more hours, but no one would say it any better.