Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Crossfire
Can Evolution and Intelligent Design Be Taught Together?
Aired May 05, 2005 - 16:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE. On the left, James Carville. On the right, Robert Novak.
In the CROSSFIRE -- in Kansas the debate heats up over Intelligent Design. Should it be taught along side Darwin's Theory of Evolution? Or is this just a way of promoting religion in our schools. And is that a bad thing? Today on CROSSFIRE.
Live from the George Washington University, James Carville and Robert Novak.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROBERT NOVAK, CROSSFIRE CO-HOST: Welcome to the CROSSFIRE.
Eighty years ago this summer the so-called Scopes Monkey Trial opened in Tennessee. John Scopes was accused of illegally teaching the Theory of Evolution. Now it's a sin not to teach evolution.
JAMES CARVILLE, CROSSFIRE CO-HOST: Today Darwin's theory is standard. Public hearings are being held in Kansas to consider if the notion of Intelligent Design should also be taught in science classes? Would that be a good or bad thing?
First, the best little political briefing in television. Our CROSSFIRE Political Alert.
My favorite sight in life is a macho, bloviating, self-righteous right-wing hypocrite making a big fool of himself. Of course, this is an equivalent as having air as your favorite thing in life, because it's so prevalent and so entertaining.
Of course, there's no bigger right-wing, bloviating, pontificating fool than Tom DeLay. Remember how he said he couldn't wait to go before the House Ethics Committee to explain his scumbagery away. And how he was defended by his butt-licking acolytes in the right-wing media. Well, now, according to "Dallas Morning News," Mr DeLay is not willing to commit to such a process.
Let me quote -- "cowardly DeLay couched in the fetal position, whimpering. When asked if he would appear before the committee, DeLay said," and I quote, "I'm not prepared to answer that question."
Mr. DeLay owes an apology to all the fools in the media who tried to defend him. NOVAK: Well, I hope you're not calling me a fool, James. But you are calling Tom DeLay a fool. If anything, he is one of the smartest, most effective congressional leaders I have seen. And I would say this right now, that you want to get him out before the committee just to do an attack on him, he isn't going to play that game.
CARVILLE: Why did he say he was going to go before the committee and couldn't wait to go there. Now, if he's such a big macho -- you know what I mean -- Texas sling shooting you cowboy hat wearing guy, why doesn't he go ahead and do it. That's all that I'm saying.
NOVAK: The "Boston Herald" reveals that John Kerry's presidential campaign put his campaign funds to unusual use. It seems drivers leased to the Kerry campaign would park it anywhere around Boston they pleased and then ignore parking violation tickets.
After 15 months of nagging by the city of Boston, the Kerry campaign finally paid fines and penalties, nearly $300 worth. Kerry also dipped into the campaign treasury to pay a $3,000-plus tab to give friends Boston Red Sox tickets while Senator Kerry tossed the first ball during the Democratic convention in Boston.
Is this a pretty good forecast of what a John Kerry administration in Washington would have looked like, God forbid?
CARVILLE: Wait a minute, the ethical challenge of the Kerry campaign is that it got some parking tickets. I mean, this is somebody that defends Tom DeLay when he goes on a golf hunt with some lobbyist? I mean come on. We all get parking tickets.
NOVAK: It's about the same level. You pay your parking tickets, don't you?
CARVILLE: You know, sometimes I forget and I get a message from them.
Perhaps the greatest testament to fiscal responsibility in the Clinton administration is that in the year 2000 the governor abandoned selling the benchmark 30 year treasury bonds to finance his debt. Of course, it was under the astute political leadership of President Clinton that there was no debt lift to issue.
Now that these clowns have taken advice of right-wing economic looneys and plunged the country into horrible debt and to give it away to the wealthy, the Bush administration is sadly, very tragically announced it will be issuing those 30-year bonds again. That way, our children can pay for the excesses of the top 1 percent of American taxpayers.
Of course the market treated the news with contempt by pricing the new future bonds very steeply. It seems as those the Bush administration ought to quick sucking up to old rich people and start helping the next generation of Americans plant its feet in the global economy. Please someone get a Clinton back in the White House.
NOVAK: You know James, I don't know who is giving you your financial advice but they are screwing it up. The 30-year bond abandonment was a bad idea. It was done under the Bush administration, not under the Clinton administration. It was done because of the 9/11 attacks. And the implosion of the stock market. And now it's a very good idea to get it back. Ask your friend Bob Rubin if he isn't glad the 30 year bonds back.
CARVILLE: We didn't have to issue them when Bob Rubin was Secretary of Treasure, because we didn't have any debt to issue.
NOVAK: It wasn't on the front page of the Washington Post this morning. You had to go to the business section of the newspaper for the good news. The April to June first quarter actually shows a federal government surplus. A $54 billion swing from deficit spending during the quarter.
The reason is the burst of tax payments just before the April 15 deadline. Sure, the government will go back in the red ink in the next quarter, but the point is that tax code is providing so much revenue. Too much, really. This calls out for lower government spending, not higher taxes. Higher taxes would be sure to cripple the economy's most creative producers like James Carville. We need less government, not more taxes.
CARVILLE: Vote for bush. He had a good month. Too bad the administration has got four times 12. What is it, 48 months it's got to go through and it had one good month. They think they have done something. Reminds me the guy that was born on third base and thought he hit a triple.
We're seeing a modern day version of the Scope's monkey trial. Next, should religion have a roll in what our children are being taught in the science classes?
And later, will President Bush be celebrating America's birthday on July 3 this year? We'll tell you why some Mexican Americans may be a little confused today.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARVILLE: It's like taking a trip back to the 20th Century. Back then, evolution, a scientifically based theory was ridiculed by religious fundamentalists. Now Darwin's theory is under attack again. This time in Kansas. Should intelligent design be added to science curriculums in our schools?
Joining us in the CROSSFIRE, Kerry Jeffrey, editor of the publication "Human Events" and Rob Boston, assistant director of communications for the group Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.
NOVAK: Mr. Boston, welcome.
ROB BOSTON, AMERICANS UNITED FOR THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE: Thank you.
NOVAK: I want to read to you a provision in the new No Child Left Behind bill that was offered by Senator Rick Santorum passed the Senate, I believe, 91-9. And I don't know why anybody should be upset about it, and you're not upset about it.
Here's what it says, "When topics are taught that may generate controversies, such as biological evolution, the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries may profoundly affect society." Do you have any trouble with that?
BOSTON: Great, that sounds wonderful, doesn't it? But what they're really trying to do here is put us on the slippery slope to teaching creationism in the public schools. I was out in Kansas in 2000, when this first started, gave some speeches around the state. A lot of people came up to me and said, you know, our children are going to be going into a college or university without having any real instruction about evolution in their public school years in high school.
NOVAK: But that's just not true. That's not true. They're saying that they will teach creationism -- they will teach evolution. They don't say they are going to teach creationism. They say -- teach other theories. There are people -- you're not intolerant enough to dismiss the idea that there might be an intelligent design in the creation of the world?
BOSTON: I think that there are ways to discuss that appropriately in a public school in a comparative religion class.
NOVAK: Well, that's all this is about. So why are you so upset?
BOSTON: They want to bring this into the science class...
NOVAK: Yeah!
BOSTON: ...teach kids that evolution is full of holes, that you don't have to believe it, that it's not true. Why not teach controversy about the germ theory of disease or the theory of gravity?
NOVAK: Why not?
CARVILLE: Let me -- let me -- because I want to get a sense of this raging debate in the scientific community. Tell me the three leading universities that have a course in intelligent design? What are three that -- what are the three?
KERRY JEFFREY, "HUMAN EVENTS" EDITOR: Probably the one you attended, James. Look, I think science cannot exist unless there's intelligent design.
CARVILLE: But how many -- name me three universities that teach this. You say there's a raging debate....
JEFFREY: (INAUDIBLE) ...if universities do not teach intelligent design, they're not teaching anything because there cannot be science unless it's assumed there is order and creation and there's cause and effect. You cannot conduct a single experiment -- you can't make any assumption or extrapolate to a theory like evolution unless you assume there is order.
CARVILLE: I understand. So, I'm correct in saying there's not a single university in the United States of America that even teaches this garbage. Not a single one. It's really no controversy, is there?
JEFFREY: No, I think it's -- it's -- no, no, no, no, no, no.
BOSTON: Bob Jones. You've got Bob Jones.
JEFFREY: What do you mean by intelligent design?
BOSTON: Well, Jones University teaches it, of course. There's no public university.
JEFFREY: I would say any university that teaches Aristotle teaches intelligent design.
NOVAK: Right. Right.
JEFFREY: Absolutely, because the first thing that Aristotle teaches is, everything is created to some end, and if you don't believe that, there can be no science.
NOVAK: Let me show you -- tell you -- repeat what CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll taken last month shows.
First question, would you be upset if evolution were taught in public schools in your community? Yes, 34 percent. No, 63 percent. Evolution is fine. Take that, William Jennings Bryant. OK, next one -- they don't know what I'm talking about when I say take that William Jennings Bryant. That's alright.
Next question, would you be upset if creationism is taught? Yes, 22 percent. No, 76 percent, even a wider margin. The people say, well, teach both of them and the students -- let the students pick what they want. What is wrong with that?
BOSTON: Well, why don't we do that in some other disciplines? Why don't we teach that the South maybe won the Civil War. Let the students decide. Why don't we teach them that maybe the earth is the center of the universe?
NOVAK: Well, let me -- let me...
BOSTON: Let the students decide! Why don't we teach them that the, maybe the moon is really made of green cheese?
(CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: You couldn't answer my last one. Let me as you a question. The polls show more people believe in the virgin birth than evolution? Do you think we ought to teach the virgin birth in our public schools?
JEFFREY: Well, I think both are true because I'm a Roman Catholic, and there's this difference...
CARVILLE: But do you think
JEFFREY: But wait a minute, James. James, James.
CARVILLE: ...we ought to teach the virgin birth? I'm a Roman Catholic, too.
JEFFREY: Wait a minute. There's a...
CARVILLE: Should we teach the virgin -- more Americans believe in the virgin birth
NOVAK: Well, then that's...
CARVILLE: ...than evolution.
JEFFREY: Can I ask you a question?
CARVILLE: You won't answer the first one, so I'm going to give you a chance. Should we?
JEFFREY: I believe both are true, and I think that the virgin birth is appropriate for being taught in a Catholic school because it's a confessional truth of the Catholic faith.
CARVILLE: Should it be taught in a public school?
JEFFREY: But intelligent design -- let me answer your question --
CARVILLE: OK.
JEFFREY: I think intelligent design needs to be taught everywhere because it's an objective truth. It's a part of the natural law. There can be no logic, no reason, no education...
NOVAK: Wait, wait, wait, let me get Mr. Boston back in here.
JEFFREY: ...unless you believe there's an intelligent design.
NOVAK: Do you believe in the teachings of Marxism? Do you think it's good theory?
BOSTON: I think it's something that the schools would need to look at like they look at any other political theory. They teach history, how it's affected the world. Obviously it has an effect on the world.
NOVAK: So, I believe Marxism (ph). I was taught about Marxism in my freshman year in college. I thought it was nonsense, but I was glad I learned all the details of it.
(APPLAUSE)
NOVAK: But, why not -- why not -- I'm, as a -- I think you are not -- you're not so narrow-minded, you don't think there is a very smart people who would -- probably better educated than you -- who believe in intelligence design. Why not teach it?
BOSTON: Bob, I -- intelligent design is a stocking horse. I've tracked these characters for almost 20 years. I know what they want to do. They start with intelligent design; the next thing you know, you're being taught Fred Flintstone geology, that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time, the earth is 6,000 years old. You've got the old-style (INAUDIBLE). There are organizations promoting that today.
(CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: You can't name a single university that teach a course in intelligent design. You refuse to say whether we should teach the virgin birth in public schools. Let me try one more. Let me ask you right now, do you believe the earth is -- do you -- are you nutty enough to believe the earth is 6,000 years old? Or you agree with me...
JEFFREY: No, no, no, no, no...
CARVILLE: ...that anybody thinks that -- do you believe the earth is 6,000 years old?
JEFFREY: James, I don't believe that.
CARVILLE: OK. Thank you.
JEFFREY: But let me say this. Wait a minute, let me answer your question. Let's have an intelligent discussion. I attended Princeton University, all right, an ivy league school. I majored in English literature there. I thought that most of my professors there basically accepted the idea of intelligent design, being, they believed that there was a creator, just like Thomas Jefferson. They believed the creator created everything with an order and a design that was reflected in even the possibility that human beings could have rational thought. That's what I learned at Princeton. So I think every legitimate university that gives any person in this country a good education teaches them that there is objective truth. Do you believe in objective truth? Do you believe in objective truth?
CARVILLE: Let me ask you --
JEFFREY: Do you believe, yes or no?
CARVILLE: I believe in -- what is objective truth? I don't know what the hell objective truth is. I asked you, you say you don't believe the earth is 6,000 years old. That's nutty.
JEFFREY: If there's no objective truth, than there's no objective morality, then we can't have a rational discussion. There's no reason for CROSSFIRE. Things are either true or not true...
CARVILLE: How can I believe in the truth?
JEFFREY: It's the first law of metaphysics, James.
NOVAK: All right, all right, we got to take a break.
CARVILLE: What's the difference between objective truth and the truth?
NOVAK: We're going to take a break.
JEFFREY: There's only one truth.
NOVAK: When we come back, is the evolution-intelligent design debate really about religion or something else?
And the first results from Great Britain's election are expected during "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS" at the top of the hour. Wolf joins us next for an update on the British elections.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WOLF BLITZER, HOST, "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS": I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington.
Coming up at the top of the hour, the polls, only minutes from now will close in the national elections in Britain. That will determine Tony Blair's future as prime minister. We'll go live to London for the first exit poll projections. They will be released right at the top of the hour, 5:00 p.m. Eastern.
New security concerns in New York City: two home made grenade blasts outside the office building housing the British consulate. We'll bring you the latest in a live report.
Plus, the lawyer and pastor for the runaway bride in Georgia speak out. We'll have a live report on what they are saying now about Jennifer Wilbanks.
All those stories, much more, only minutes away on WOLF BLITZER REPORTS. Now back to CROSSFIRE.
CARVILLE: Welcome back. Should American classrooms add the idea of intelligent design as an alternative to the theory of evolution in their curriculum? If we do that, could we be setting the door to offer religious teachings which have no place in our schools. Our guests today are "Human Events" editor Terry Jeffrey and Rob Boston of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
NOVAK: Mr. Boston you have been criticizing the motives of the people for intelligent design to say they have a secret agenda to teach the world is flat and all this sort of thing. But I'm going to look at your motives. You and your organization have been -- against any mention of the word God in the classrooms, you can't even say a prayer. Isn't this part of your campaign against religion in America in any form -- any public venue? Hasn't anything to do with teaching evolution.
BOSTON: The reason I say there's a larger agenda is because the man who helped found this movement, Philip Johnson, sort of godfather of intelligent design says that himself. That he is a creationist. He thinks that the Biblical account should be taught in our schools. Intelligent design is what he wants to use to teach these kids get this going.
NOVAK: Isn't this part of your concept to keep the mention of God out of the public place?
BOSTON: No. No, it's not. And we support the objective instruction about religion in public schools. Classes that would discuss all the major world religions. It would discuss religious influences in literature. If it's is done right, if it's done from an objective standpoint, we have no problem with that. We just don't think the public school should be churches. That's not what they're for. I have two children myself. My wife and I can take them to church. We don't need some school bureaucrat or each teacher some where to take over their religious lives.
(APPLAUSE)
CARVILLE: Let me show you something, the National Academy of Sciences said in a publication in 1999.
"Theories are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, inferences, tested hypotheses and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have."
There are 53 different scientific organizations that have endorsed the Theory of Evolution. Name the three leading scientific organizations that have endorsed intelligent design?
JEFFREY: Well, the Discovery Institute, as I understand it, has about 356 scientists who have signed...
CARVILLE: For that other guy put out 400 named Steve.
JEFFREY: Wait a minute.
CARVILLE: Name me the three leading, professional scientific organizations that have have endorsed creative design.
JEFFREY: You want me to answer the question?
NOVAK: That's interior decorating.
JEFFREY: You pull that quote back up.
CARVILLE: Go ahead, put it back up there.
JEFFREY: That quote implicitly recognizes intelligent design. That quote assumes that there's order, there's logic, there's cause and effect. Just as you look at this room, you say, this room didn't happen by random.
CARVILLE: Let me read what it says. "In that sense evolution is one of the strongest and useful scientific theories we have."
JEFFREY: And the only reason they could have a theory, James -- let me answer your question, the only reason they can have a theory is they can go from the observation of objective facts and extrapolate from that, assuming there's a logical order to a logical conclusion. And the only way they can do that is because creation has an intelligent design. That assumes intelligent design.
(APPLAUSE)
NOVAK: Mr. Boston, I want to try once more to get you to just reflect -- react to what these people are saying, not what you say their secret motives are. Dr. Paul Nelson, Center for Science and Cultural Discovery Institute, "biology teachers should present the evidence supporting Darwin's theory, of course, they should also present the scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution, as well." What is wrong with that?
BOSTON: Well, when these scientific challenges exist in the mind of about .0009 percent of professional scientists, they are not really a serious challenge at all. Now, here is what is interesting about this...
NOVAK: We're out of time. We'll have to get what is interesting in the next show. Thank you very much, Mr. Boston, Mr. Jeffrey.
Next, we'll tell you why they may be looking for a new calendar over at the White House today.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NOVAK: A projected winner in the British elections is expected to be announced at the top of the hour. Wolf Blitzer will have those results in just over two minutes.
CARVILLE: How do you say fuzzy math in Spanish? Today is the fifth of May, Cinco de Mayo, celebrating a key battle in Mexican history. But hold on a minute, President Bush host a Cinco de Mayo dinner at the White House to honor Mexican-Americans last night.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I always look forward to Cinco de Mayo, especially because it gives me a chance to practice my Spanish. My only problem this year is I scheduled the dinner on Quatro de Mayo. Next year I'm going to have to work on my math.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARVILLE: Uh, oh. This is a guy who wants to overhaul Social Security.
NOVAK: He's got a good sense of humor.
CARVILLE: He does. I agree with that. But I'm a mustard man, not a mayo man myself. But what the hell, you know.
From the left, I'm James Carville.
NOVAK: From the right, I'm Robert Novak. Join us again next time for another edition of "CROSSFIRE." "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS" starts right now.
END
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired May 5, 2005 - 16:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE. On the left, James Carville. On the right, Robert Novak.
In the CROSSFIRE -- in Kansas the debate heats up over Intelligent Design. Should it be taught along side Darwin's Theory of Evolution? Or is this just a way of promoting religion in our schools. And is that a bad thing? Today on CROSSFIRE.
Live from the George Washington University, James Carville and Robert Novak.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROBERT NOVAK, CROSSFIRE CO-HOST: Welcome to the CROSSFIRE.
Eighty years ago this summer the so-called Scopes Monkey Trial opened in Tennessee. John Scopes was accused of illegally teaching the Theory of Evolution. Now it's a sin not to teach evolution.
JAMES CARVILLE, CROSSFIRE CO-HOST: Today Darwin's theory is standard. Public hearings are being held in Kansas to consider if the notion of Intelligent Design should also be taught in science classes? Would that be a good or bad thing?
First, the best little political briefing in television. Our CROSSFIRE Political Alert.
My favorite sight in life is a macho, bloviating, self-righteous right-wing hypocrite making a big fool of himself. Of course, this is an equivalent as having air as your favorite thing in life, because it's so prevalent and so entertaining.
Of course, there's no bigger right-wing, bloviating, pontificating fool than Tom DeLay. Remember how he said he couldn't wait to go before the House Ethics Committee to explain his scumbagery away. And how he was defended by his butt-licking acolytes in the right-wing media. Well, now, according to "Dallas Morning News," Mr DeLay is not willing to commit to such a process.
Let me quote -- "cowardly DeLay couched in the fetal position, whimpering. When asked if he would appear before the committee, DeLay said," and I quote, "I'm not prepared to answer that question."
Mr. DeLay owes an apology to all the fools in the media who tried to defend him. NOVAK: Well, I hope you're not calling me a fool, James. But you are calling Tom DeLay a fool. If anything, he is one of the smartest, most effective congressional leaders I have seen. And I would say this right now, that you want to get him out before the committee just to do an attack on him, he isn't going to play that game.
CARVILLE: Why did he say he was going to go before the committee and couldn't wait to go there. Now, if he's such a big macho -- you know what I mean -- Texas sling shooting you cowboy hat wearing guy, why doesn't he go ahead and do it. That's all that I'm saying.
NOVAK: The "Boston Herald" reveals that John Kerry's presidential campaign put his campaign funds to unusual use. It seems drivers leased to the Kerry campaign would park it anywhere around Boston they pleased and then ignore parking violation tickets.
After 15 months of nagging by the city of Boston, the Kerry campaign finally paid fines and penalties, nearly $300 worth. Kerry also dipped into the campaign treasury to pay a $3,000-plus tab to give friends Boston Red Sox tickets while Senator Kerry tossed the first ball during the Democratic convention in Boston.
Is this a pretty good forecast of what a John Kerry administration in Washington would have looked like, God forbid?
CARVILLE: Wait a minute, the ethical challenge of the Kerry campaign is that it got some parking tickets. I mean, this is somebody that defends Tom DeLay when he goes on a golf hunt with some lobbyist? I mean come on. We all get parking tickets.
NOVAK: It's about the same level. You pay your parking tickets, don't you?
CARVILLE: You know, sometimes I forget and I get a message from them.
Perhaps the greatest testament to fiscal responsibility in the Clinton administration is that in the year 2000 the governor abandoned selling the benchmark 30 year treasury bonds to finance his debt. Of course, it was under the astute political leadership of President Clinton that there was no debt lift to issue.
Now that these clowns have taken advice of right-wing economic looneys and plunged the country into horrible debt and to give it away to the wealthy, the Bush administration is sadly, very tragically announced it will be issuing those 30-year bonds again. That way, our children can pay for the excesses of the top 1 percent of American taxpayers.
Of course the market treated the news with contempt by pricing the new future bonds very steeply. It seems as those the Bush administration ought to quick sucking up to old rich people and start helping the next generation of Americans plant its feet in the global economy. Please someone get a Clinton back in the White House.
NOVAK: You know James, I don't know who is giving you your financial advice but they are screwing it up. The 30-year bond abandonment was a bad idea. It was done under the Bush administration, not under the Clinton administration. It was done because of the 9/11 attacks. And the implosion of the stock market. And now it's a very good idea to get it back. Ask your friend Bob Rubin if he isn't glad the 30 year bonds back.
CARVILLE: We didn't have to issue them when Bob Rubin was Secretary of Treasure, because we didn't have any debt to issue.
NOVAK: It wasn't on the front page of the Washington Post this morning. You had to go to the business section of the newspaper for the good news. The April to June first quarter actually shows a federal government surplus. A $54 billion swing from deficit spending during the quarter.
The reason is the burst of tax payments just before the April 15 deadline. Sure, the government will go back in the red ink in the next quarter, but the point is that tax code is providing so much revenue. Too much, really. This calls out for lower government spending, not higher taxes. Higher taxes would be sure to cripple the economy's most creative producers like James Carville. We need less government, not more taxes.
CARVILLE: Vote for bush. He had a good month. Too bad the administration has got four times 12. What is it, 48 months it's got to go through and it had one good month. They think they have done something. Reminds me the guy that was born on third base and thought he hit a triple.
We're seeing a modern day version of the Scope's monkey trial. Next, should religion have a roll in what our children are being taught in the science classes?
And later, will President Bush be celebrating America's birthday on July 3 this year? We'll tell you why some Mexican Americans may be a little confused today.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARVILLE: It's like taking a trip back to the 20th Century. Back then, evolution, a scientifically based theory was ridiculed by religious fundamentalists. Now Darwin's theory is under attack again. This time in Kansas. Should intelligent design be added to science curriculums in our schools?
Joining us in the CROSSFIRE, Kerry Jeffrey, editor of the publication "Human Events" and Rob Boston, assistant director of communications for the group Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.
NOVAK: Mr. Boston, welcome.
ROB BOSTON, AMERICANS UNITED FOR THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE: Thank you.
NOVAK: I want to read to you a provision in the new No Child Left Behind bill that was offered by Senator Rick Santorum passed the Senate, I believe, 91-9. And I don't know why anybody should be upset about it, and you're not upset about it.
Here's what it says, "When topics are taught that may generate controversies, such as biological evolution, the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries may profoundly affect society." Do you have any trouble with that?
BOSTON: Great, that sounds wonderful, doesn't it? But what they're really trying to do here is put us on the slippery slope to teaching creationism in the public schools. I was out in Kansas in 2000, when this first started, gave some speeches around the state. A lot of people came up to me and said, you know, our children are going to be going into a college or university without having any real instruction about evolution in their public school years in high school.
NOVAK: But that's just not true. That's not true. They're saying that they will teach creationism -- they will teach evolution. They don't say they are going to teach creationism. They say -- teach other theories. There are people -- you're not intolerant enough to dismiss the idea that there might be an intelligent design in the creation of the world?
BOSTON: I think that there are ways to discuss that appropriately in a public school in a comparative religion class.
NOVAK: Well, that's all this is about. So why are you so upset?
BOSTON: They want to bring this into the science class...
NOVAK: Yeah!
BOSTON: ...teach kids that evolution is full of holes, that you don't have to believe it, that it's not true. Why not teach controversy about the germ theory of disease or the theory of gravity?
NOVAK: Why not?
CARVILLE: Let me -- let me -- because I want to get a sense of this raging debate in the scientific community. Tell me the three leading universities that have a course in intelligent design? What are three that -- what are the three?
KERRY JEFFREY, "HUMAN EVENTS" EDITOR: Probably the one you attended, James. Look, I think science cannot exist unless there's intelligent design.
CARVILLE: But how many -- name me three universities that teach this. You say there's a raging debate....
JEFFREY: (INAUDIBLE) ...if universities do not teach intelligent design, they're not teaching anything because there cannot be science unless it's assumed there is order and creation and there's cause and effect. You cannot conduct a single experiment -- you can't make any assumption or extrapolate to a theory like evolution unless you assume there is order.
CARVILLE: I understand. So, I'm correct in saying there's not a single university in the United States of America that even teaches this garbage. Not a single one. It's really no controversy, is there?
JEFFREY: No, I think it's -- it's -- no, no, no, no, no, no.
BOSTON: Bob Jones. You've got Bob Jones.
JEFFREY: What do you mean by intelligent design?
BOSTON: Well, Jones University teaches it, of course. There's no public university.
JEFFREY: I would say any university that teaches Aristotle teaches intelligent design.
NOVAK: Right. Right.
JEFFREY: Absolutely, because the first thing that Aristotle teaches is, everything is created to some end, and if you don't believe that, there can be no science.
NOVAK: Let me show you -- tell you -- repeat what CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll taken last month shows.
First question, would you be upset if evolution were taught in public schools in your community? Yes, 34 percent. No, 63 percent. Evolution is fine. Take that, William Jennings Bryant. OK, next one -- they don't know what I'm talking about when I say take that William Jennings Bryant. That's alright.
Next question, would you be upset if creationism is taught? Yes, 22 percent. No, 76 percent, even a wider margin. The people say, well, teach both of them and the students -- let the students pick what they want. What is wrong with that?
BOSTON: Well, why don't we do that in some other disciplines? Why don't we teach that the South maybe won the Civil War. Let the students decide. Why don't we teach them that maybe the earth is the center of the universe?
NOVAK: Well, let me -- let me...
BOSTON: Let the students decide! Why don't we teach them that the, maybe the moon is really made of green cheese?
(CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: You couldn't answer my last one. Let me as you a question. The polls show more people believe in the virgin birth than evolution? Do you think we ought to teach the virgin birth in our public schools?
JEFFREY: Well, I think both are true because I'm a Roman Catholic, and there's this difference...
CARVILLE: But do you think
JEFFREY: But wait a minute, James. James, James.
CARVILLE: ...we ought to teach the virgin birth? I'm a Roman Catholic, too.
JEFFREY: Wait a minute. There's a...
CARVILLE: Should we teach the virgin -- more Americans believe in the virgin birth
NOVAK: Well, then that's...
CARVILLE: ...than evolution.
JEFFREY: Can I ask you a question?
CARVILLE: You won't answer the first one, so I'm going to give you a chance. Should we?
JEFFREY: I believe both are true, and I think that the virgin birth is appropriate for being taught in a Catholic school because it's a confessional truth of the Catholic faith.
CARVILLE: Should it be taught in a public school?
JEFFREY: But intelligent design -- let me answer your question --
CARVILLE: OK.
JEFFREY: I think intelligent design needs to be taught everywhere because it's an objective truth. It's a part of the natural law. There can be no logic, no reason, no education...
NOVAK: Wait, wait, wait, let me get Mr. Boston back in here.
JEFFREY: ...unless you believe there's an intelligent design.
NOVAK: Do you believe in the teachings of Marxism? Do you think it's good theory?
BOSTON: I think it's something that the schools would need to look at like they look at any other political theory. They teach history, how it's affected the world. Obviously it has an effect on the world.
NOVAK: So, I believe Marxism (ph). I was taught about Marxism in my freshman year in college. I thought it was nonsense, but I was glad I learned all the details of it.
(APPLAUSE)
NOVAK: But, why not -- why not -- I'm, as a -- I think you are not -- you're not so narrow-minded, you don't think there is a very smart people who would -- probably better educated than you -- who believe in intelligence design. Why not teach it?
BOSTON: Bob, I -- intelligent design is a stocking horse. I've tracked these characters for almost 20 years. I know what they want to do. They start with intelligent design; the next thing you know, you're being taught Fred Flintstone geology, that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time, the earth is 6,000 years old. You've got the old-style (INAUDIBLE). There are organizations promoting that today.
(CROSSTALK)
CARVILLE: You can't name a single university that teach a course in intelligent design. You refuse to say whether we should teach the virgin birth in public schools. Let me try one more. Let me ask you right now, do you believe the earth is -- do you -- are you nutty enough to believe the earth is 6,000 years old? Or you agree with me...
JEFFREY: No, no, no, no, no...
CARVILLE: ...that anybody thinks that -- do you believe the earth is 6,000 years old?
JEFFREY: James, I don't believe that.
CARVILLE: OK. Thank you.
JEFFREY: But let me say this. Wait a minute, let me answer your question. Let's have an intelligent discussion. I attended Princeton University, all right, an ivy league school. I majored in English literature there. I thought that most of my professors there basically accepted the idea of intelligent design, being, they believed that there was a creator, just like Thomas Jefferson. They believed the creator created everything with an order and a design that was reflected in even the possibility that human beings could have rational thought. That's what I learned at Princeton. So I think every legitimate university that gives any person in this country a good education teaches them that there is objective truth. Do you believe in objective truth? Do you believe in objective truth?
CARVILLE: Let me ask you --
JEFFREY: Do you believe, yes or no?
CARVILLE: I believe in -- what is objective truth? I don't know what the hell objective truth is. I asked you, you say you don't believe the earth is 6,000 years old. That's nutty.
JEFFREY: If there's no objective truth, than there's no objective morality, then we can't have a rational discussion. There's no reason for CROSSFIRE. Things are either true or not true...
CARVILLE: How can I believe in the truth?
JEFFREY: It's the first law of metaphysics, James.
NOVAK: All right, all right, we got to take a break.
CARVILLE: What's the difference between objective truth and the truth?
NOVAK: We're going to take a break.
JEFFREY: There's only one truth.
NOVAK: When we come back, is the evolution-intelligent design debate really about religion or something else?
And the first results from Great Britain's election are expected during "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS" at the top of the hour. Wolf joins us next for an update on the British elections.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WOLF BLITZER, HOST, "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS": I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington.
Coming up at the top of the hour, the polls, only minutes from now will close in the national elections in Britain. That will determine Tony Blair's future as prime minister. We'll go live to London for the first exit poll projections. They will be released right at the top of the hour, 5:00 p.m. Eastern.
New security concerns in New York City: two home made grenade blasts outside the office building housing the British consulate. We'll bring you the latest in a live report.
Plus, the lawyer and pastor for the runaway bride in Georgia speak out. We'll have a live report on what they are saying now about Jennifer Wilbanks.
All those stories, much more, only minutes away on WOLF BLITZER REPORTS. Now back to CROSSFIRE.
CARVILLE: Welcome back. Should American classrooms add the idea of intelligent design as an alternative to the theory of evolution in their curriculum? If we do that, could we be setting the door to offer religious teachings which have no place in our schools. Our guests today are "Human Events" editor Terry Jeffrey and Rob Boston of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
NOVAK: Mr. Boston you have been criticizing the motives of the people for intelligent design to say they have a secret agenda to teach the world is flat and all this sort of thing. But I'm going to look at your motives. You and your organization have been -- against any mention of the word God in the classrooms, you can't even say a prayer. Isn't this part of your campaign against religion in America in any form -- any public venue? Hasn't anything to do with teaching evolution.
BOSTON: The reason I say there's a larger agenda is because the man who helped found this movement, Philip Johnson, sort of godfather of intelligent design says that himself. That he is a creationist. He thinks that the Biblical account should be taught in our schools. Intelligent design is what he wants to use to teach these kids get this going.
NOVAK: Isn't this part of your concept to keep the mention of God out of the public place?
BOSTON: No. No, it's not. And we support the objective instruction about religion in public schools. Classes that would discuss all the major world religions. It would discuss religious influences in literature. If it's is done right, if it's done from an objective standpoint, we have no problem with that. We just don't think the public school should be churches. That's not what they're for. I have two children myself. My wife and I can take them to church. We don't need some school bureaucrat or each teacher some where to take over their religious lives.
(APPLAUSE)
CARVILLE: Let me show you something, the National Academy of Sciences said in a publication in 1999.
"Theories are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, inferences, tested hypotheses and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have."
There are 53 different scientific organizations that have endorsed the Theory of Evolution. Name the three leading scientific organizations that have endorsed intelligent design?
JEFFREY: Well, the Discovery Institute, as I understand it, has about 356 scientists who have signed...
CARVILLE: For that other guy put out 400 named Steve.
JEFFREY: Wait a minute.
CARVILLE: Name me the three leading, professional scientific organizations that have have endorsed creative design.
JEFFREY: You want me to answer the question?
NOVAK: That's interior decorating.
JEFFREY: You pull that quote back up.
CARVILLE: Go ahead, put it back up there.
JEFFREY: That quote implicitly recognizes intelligent design. That quote assumes that there's order, there's logic, there's cause and effect. Just as you look at this room, you say, this room didn't happen by random.
CARVILLE: Let me read what it says. "In that sense evolution is one of the strongest and useful scientific theories we have."
JEFFREY: And the only reason they could have a theory, James -- let me answer your question, the only reason they can have a theory is they can go from the observation of objective facts and extrapolate from that, assuming there's a logical order to a logical conclusion. And the only way they can do that is because creation has an intelligent design. That assumes intelligent design.
(APPLAUSE)
NOVAK: Mr. Boston, I want to try once more to get you to just reflect -- react to what these people are saying, not what you say their secret motives are. Dr. Paul Nelson, Center for Science and Cultural Discovery Institute, "biology teachers should present the evidence supporting Darwin's theory, of course, they should also present the scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution, as well." What is wrong with that?
BOSTON: Well, when these scientific challenges exist in the mind of about .0009 percent of professional scientists, they are not really a serious challenge at all. Now, here is what is interesting about this...
NOVAK: We're out of time. We'll have to get what is interesting in the next show. Thank you very much, Mr. Boston, Mr. Jeffrey.
Next, we'll tell you why they may be looking for a new calendar over at the White House today.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NOVAK: A projected winner in the British elections is expected to be announced at the top of the hour. Wolf Blitzer will have those results in just over two minutes.
CARVILLE: How do you say fuzzy math in Spanish? Today is the fifth of May, Cinco de Mayo, celebrating a key battle in Mexican history. But hold on a minute, President Bush host a Cinco de Mayo dinner at the White House to honor Mexican-Americans last night.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I always look forward to Cinco de Mayo, especially because it gives me a chance to practice my Spanish. My only problem this year is I scheduled the dinner on Quatro de Mayo. Next year I'm going to have to work on my math.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARVILLE: Uh, oh. This is a guy who wants to overhaul Social Security.
NOVAK: He's got a good sense of humor.
CARVILLE: He does. I agree with that. But I'm a mustard man, not a mayo man myself. But what the hell, you know.
From the left, I'm James Carville.
NOVAK: From the right, I'm Robert Novak. Join us again next time for another edition of "CROSSFIRE." "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS" starts right now.
END
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
