TRANSCRIPT: # 082600cb.463
SECTION: NEWS; DOMESTIC
LENGTH: 10957 words
HEADLINE: Cheney Weighs In on Iraq; Hatfill Takes on Ashcroft; Should Schools Teach Creationism?
BYLINE: Pat Buchanan; Bill Press; Ken Allard; Ron Blome; Gregg Jarrett; Michelle Caruso-Cabrera
GUESTS: David Rivkin; Barry Lynn; Brian Fahling
HIGHLIGHT:
Vice President Dick Cheney in a speech in Nashville today said that the Bush administration has the right to attack Iraq without asking Congress for approval. Then, former Army scientist Steven Hatfill takes on Attorney General John Ashcroft. Finally, should U.S. schools teach creationism alongside Darwin's evolution theory?
BODY:

PAT BUCHANAN, CO-HOST: Bill Press, Pat Buchanan live from Washington, and this afternoon, we have lots going on.

BILL PRESS, CO-HOST: OK. In fact, good Monday afternoon, everybody. Thank you for joining us. BUCHANAN & PRESS. I'm Bill Press here with Pat Buchanan. We're awaiting any minute the beginning of a news conference out of Oregon about those two missing girls out there. We'll go to that as soon as that news conference begins.

---

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BUCHANAN: Welcome back. We've got a hot debate right now. It's a familiar debate between evolution and creation. Down in Georgia in Cobb County, where Marietta lies, Newt Gingrich's old district, there's a couple of battles going on.

One is there's a book on, I guess, on scientific biology, in which a disclaimer was placed for students which said, "evolution is a theory. It should be debated openly and discussed, and keep an open mind."

But the other issue is whether or not both the idea of creation by God, if you will, of the earth, should be taught along with the idea that we simply evolved from preexisting matter.

And this is a fiery debate going on down there in Georgia. And of course we've got a couple of fiery guests. An old colleague of mine, and old partner of mine, as a matter of fact, Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.

And Brian Fahling of the Center for Law and Policy. I think that's the American Family Center down there in Tupelo, Mississippi. I hope I've got that right.

Go ahead, Bill

PRESS: Brian, good afternoon. I hate to take the wind out of everybody's sails here, but I think I can resolve this debate before it gets started. Why don't we just consider facts the way they are? You've got evolution, which is science, that belongs in the public schools.

And you've got the story of creation, which is religion, and that belongs in the church and not in the public schools. We keep the two separate. Everybody is happy. We go on to another subject -- right?

BRIAN FAHLING, FOR TEACHING CREATIONISM: Well, in fact, what you have is evolution as a philosophical question, if you are asking about origin. In other words, evolution purports to talk about incremental change over billions of years.

And the flip side, though, Bill, is we're not talking about creationism as you've described it. We're essentially talking about intelligent design, which really is the application of science to observe data. And so I guess I have to disagree. I know that's where you want to characterize it, but we're simply talking about science.

PRESS: I know the theory of intelligent design is one of the proofs of existence of god at St. Thomas Aquinas. I have a degree in theology. We studied St. Thomas Aquinas. Again, that was theology, that was religion. That belongs in the church and not in the public schools.

FAHLING: As a philosophical question. Who began and who set in motion life as we know it, that can be a religious or a philosophical question. But the simple observation of data -- for instance, Michael Behe, the Lehigh University professor who wrote "Darwin's Black Box" and talked about -- introduced the complexity at the molecular level, with respect to an answer or question that was thrown at evolutionists, which is, how can you have the origin of something that requires, at a minimum, these parts? That you cannot have something that is operational as all of these things are simultaneously present.

So that's an observation based on perceived data that's empirical. It's not an answer to a philosophical question, though some may draw the conclusion that we're talking about God ultimately, with respect to intelligent life.

BUCHANAN: All right, Barry Lynn, let's get into this. Look, in terms of -- I agree with you 100 percent, if we're talking about genesis. We're talking about Adam and Eve. We're talking religion, then that certainly doesn't belong in a science course. It belongs in a religion course...

BARRY LYNN, AGAINST TEACHING CREATIONISM: Correct.

BUCHANAN: ... or history of religion. However, if we're talking about evolution, it seems to me you have to study -- in history and science, you've got to study Darwin's theory of evolution. You can also study the Big Bang theory.

But I think maybe -- I don't agree with Darwin's theory as precisely the way it was done. And, you know, the Big Bang theory doesn't seem to be -- to logically stand up. So should you not team teach them as they are, as theories?

LYNN: Well, no. But of course, most scientists would agree with you that Darwin's explanation was not the complete explanation. That's why we've had the last 75 years of additional scientific evidence to help to refine what was originally Darwin's idea.

Now, we've got other theories, Pat, like the theory of gravity, the theory of electromagnetism, the theory of evolution. They're all sound, scientific doctrine. All of the theory is in science is a conclusion based on observation and continuing evidence. And there's all kinds of evidence, Pat, for evolution. And there's none for this so-called creation science, which is...

BUCHANAN: Let me get in here, before we get our other guest in here. It does seem to me that what Bill was saying, that, look, I mean, by simple reason and logic, the idea of Aristotle -- out of religion -- Aristotle's need for a prime mover in order to set in motion the universe, which must have been inert. Some people say, well, it's a big bang. It seems to me you would study Aristotle's theory along with the idea of a big bang theory, would you not?

LYNN: Well, you'd study Aristotle because he's an important philosopher. You'd study world religions in a school if you had time to do that because that's a part of what the world is all about. But in a biology class, you teach only science. And there's nothing at the molecular level, nothing in the fossil record, which grows year by year and tends to confirm only one idea, Pat. And that is evolution. This idea...

FAHLING: The fossil record does not grow year by year.

LYNN: Of course it does.

FAHLING: Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Golde, who recently passed away, have both commentated and remarked at the paucity of evidence. The fossil records simply does not support evolution.

LYNN: No, you've misquoted the dead now twice.

FAHLING: What we need to do is bring this back. Let's it back to the question of...

(CROSSTALK)

PRESS: One at a time. Go ahead, Brian. Finish up.

FAHLING: Let's bring it back to the question of science. In other words, evolution has been immunized or inoculated, if you will, from criticism. There's a tremendous institutional chauvinism, if you will, with respect to evolution, that keeps out anybody who actually might want to challenge it or start asking intelligent questions about, do you really have the evidence here?

What does this evidence suggest. contrary to your own philosophical presuppositions? Intelligent design asks those questions. I don't believe that Cobb County, Georgia...

PRESS: Go ahead, Barry.

LYNN: It shows the design is really nothing but one more variation on creation science. Who is the intelligent designer?

FAHLING: You can answer that...

PRESS: Brian, one at a time.

FAHLING: Bill, let me say this.

LYNN: ... into the realm of religion and out of the realm of science. So don't just call it something new.

FAHLING: Bill, but you don't want to disqualify fair inquiry into observed empirical data. What you've said is, in other words, the camera that I'm looking into suggests to me a designer. Now, the question of the science of that camera remains true, irrespective if I'm right or wrong about who the designer is.

PRESS: Brian, I'm going to interrupt this time and just make the point. You can't talk about that intelligent design without talking about God. And once you get into God, you're into religion. And you're not in the public schools.

FAHLING: Bill, I disagree, but you can. You can talk about the science that is out there, with respect to, for instance, the irreducible complexity at the molecular level. You don't have to talk about God. It may suggest things about God, but you don't have to talk about it.

(CROSSTALK)

PRESS: OK, guys, we're going to ask you both to hold. Brian and Barry, please hold. We're going to hold you there because we've got a lot more questions. It's BUCHANAN & PRESS. We're debating evolution and creationism.

When we come back, wasn't this whole thing decided by the Supreme Court about 10 or 12 years ago? Why are we debating it again? We'll find out when we come back on MSNBC, America's news channel.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PRESS: Welcome back to the smartest debate on television, if we have to say so ourselves, Pat Buchanan and Bill Press.

So, in science classes in public schools, they teach evolution. Should they also teach creationism? That's our debate right now, with Brian Fahling, joining us from Tupelo, Mississippi. He is with the Center for Law and Policy. And Barry Lynn here in Washington, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State -- Pat.

BUCHANAN: Barry Lynn, are you telling me that, for me to be part of the smartest debate on television, I must accept this as fact that you, my old co-host, are descended from the great monkey?

LYNN: No. We just have to assume that you and I and some great monkey have common ancestors. And, you know, again...

(LAUGHTER)

BUCHANAN: I don't believe it, Barry.

LYNN: I know it's difficult to accept this, but you and I and chimpanzees are just about 2 percent worth of DNA different from one another.

(LAUGHTER)

BUCHANAN: God's responsible for the 2 percent.

LYNN: When I talk to do both of you, I know that both of you have background in the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul II said some -- just some years before his passing, he saw incredibly new evidence for evolution. He had no problem, he said, with evolution and the consistency with the Christian faith.

And I think we should get over that and get into what's really going on here, which is the politics of Cobb County. A lot of people down there want to generate political heat out of this issue, which has already been resolved by the Supreme Court. You can't teach both creation science, which is bogus, and evolution in a biology class. It's unconstitutional.

PRESS: Brian, let me pick up on that. Because the Supreme Court has ruled that you shouldn't teach both. So isn't this what Barry says? I mean, even though this has been decided, this is an effort by the conservative Christians down there in Cobb County to force their religion on all the kids in public schools, and offer these two as alternatives and acceptable theories of science, which in fact, they're not?

FAHLING: Bill, the Supreme Court, in Edwards versus Aguillard in 1987, didn't decide anything about the teaching of science in high school or any other school. What they decided was that when there's a religious purpose and the desire to promote something that they called creationism. When that's the primary purpose, you can't do that.

What we're talking about is simple, observable facts through empirical testing. For instance, with intelligent design theory, they're not talking about rationing back to the beginning and saying, now, you must believe in God. But the question is, is evolution going to be...

(CROSSTALK)

PRESS: What facts do you come up with to support creation -- the creation story? There aren't any. It's just a story.

FAHLING: But I'm not talking about supporting the creation story. I'm talking about allowing an origin of life theory to be taught alongside of evolution. Evolution is never challenged. It's allowed to be challenged. What you do is name-calling. But you call them fundamentalists, you call them this. But the reality is, they're scientists...

BUCHANAN: Brian, I'm afraid we're going to have to go. We have to thank Brian Fahling here, and thank Barry Lynn.

FAHLING: Thank you.

LYNN: Thank you.

BUCHANAN: Pat Buchanan and Bill Press, we'll be back with Bill's comments next. You're watching MSNBC, America's news channel.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PRESS: Well, as we've been discussing, school officials down in Cobb County, Georgia, want the story of creation taught in public schools right up there alongside of evolution. What a giant step backwards. Schools are supposed to teach kids, not confuse them. And this is massive confusion. This confuses science with religion.

Look, creationism and evolution are not two competing scientific theories. One is religion and one is not. One is science and one is not. But there's nothing wrong with parents and preachers teaching the story of creation. It's a beautiful story that teaches us a lot about our relationship with God and our relationship with the rest of creation.

But that's a story that was written as a parable. It was never meant to be taken literally, and kids should not be forced to do take it literally today. I say this as a believer. I say it as a Christian. I say it as a student of theology.

There is no reason to debate this over and over again. The distinction is clear. Evolution is pure science that belongs in public schools. Creationism is pure religion, that does not. It's as simple as that. Keep creationism in the church. Keep evolution in the public schools. We'll all be happy.

BUCHANAN: OK, that is it for BUCHANAN & PRESS today. Now let's go to the news with Lester Holt.

LOAD-DATE: October 29, 2002