The recent legal dispute involving the Dover Area School District over intelligent design should not be characterized as a debate between evolution and creationism. Creationism is based on the Genesis creation account, usually including the creation of the Earth by a biblical God a few thousand years ago. In contrast, the theory of intelligent design claims that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as random mutation and natural selection, and it makes scientific arguments to back that up.

		Rick Santorum is a U.S. senator from Pennsylvania and chairman of the Senate Republican Conference.

A recent Post-Gazette editorial was completely inaccurate in describing the York County district's decision regarding the teaching of evolution and indulges in rhetoric instead of engaging in a reasoned debate on the issues. The fact is that the Dover Area School District will continue to teach evolution and prohibit the teaching of intelligent design, creationism or the presentation of any religious beliefs. The school board simply has presented a balanced curriculum that makes students aware of the controversies surrounding evolution.

Let me be clear: I firmly believe that creationism should not be taught in public schools. Proponents of intelligent design theory believe that our public schools should teach our children more about evolution, including a candid assessment of the theory's unresolved difficulties. Evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to scrutiny, not as sacred dogma that cannot be questioned.

But is there a real scientific dispute? Absolutely. Recently, over 300 scientists, including scholars from Yale, Princeton, MIT and the Smithsonian, signed a public statement declaring that they were "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life" and encouraging "careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory."

Because there is a real scientific dispute, federal education policy calls on schools to "teach the controversy." In 2001, I offered report language ultimately attached to the No Child Left Behind Act that states, "Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society."

Constitutional law also allows the teaching of alternative scientific theories in the classroom. In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court made clear in Edwards v. Aguillard that "we do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught."

A 2001 Zogby poll shows that 71 percent of Americans believe that "biology teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it." Even more overwhelming is a 2004 Steinberg Poll showing 73 percent of California voters believe that biology teachers in public schools should teach the scientific evidence for and against Darwin's theory of evolution.

Ultimately, academic freedom is at stake. Students should learn both the strengths of Darwinian evolution, as well as the theory's scientific weaknesses. It is beneficial for our students to discuss the exciting unanswered questions surrounding evolution. If we want our students to become educated citizens, we should all support an open, engaging and broad discussion of evolution theory in our public schools.

I commend the Dover Area School District for taking a stand and refusing to ignore the controversy.