The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight a Newsmaker interview with Sen. John McCain about his tobacco legislation; a four-way debate about teaching evolution in the schools; a Tom Bearden report on the scrap between credit unions and the banks; and a David Gergen dialogue about a most interesting woman of history. It all follows our summary of the news this Tuesday. NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: There was more heat over tobacco legislation today. House Speaker Gingrich called the main Senate bill a tax increase for bigger government. White House Spokesman Mike McCurry said it was clear Gingrich was speaking for tobacco interests. The bill's sponsor, Republican Senator John McCain, met with administration officials at the White House. He said afterward revenue generated by the bill was a side bar to the most important provision.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN, [R] Arizona: Central to the bill is kids smoking. That's the key element of it. How the money is spent will be a subject I think of negotiations between the White House and both House and Senate leadership, but we intentionally on the Commerce Committee set that issue basically aside because whether kids stop smoking or not will not be directly related to how the money is spent as importantly as it is, the look-back provision, the penalties, and all the other aspects of the bill. But I think once that we have agreement on the fundamentals of the bill, then the negotiations will take place on how the money is spent. And that will be done at the highest levels.

JIM LEHRER: We'll talk to Sen. McCain right after this News Summary. President Clinton today threatened to veto an education proposal now before the Senate. The bill would allow parents to set up education savings accounts that earn tax-free interest. The president spoke in the Rose Garden with Vice President Gore and the Democratic leaders of the House and Senate. He said the so-called education IRA's would benefit the rich.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: The proposal is bad education policy and bad tax policy. It won't doanything to strengthen our schools, and, in fact, would weaken public education by siphoning limited federal resources away from public schools. It would disproportionately benefit highest income taxpayers. Families who are struggling to make ends meet would never see a penny of it. I would short change our children.

JIM LEHRER: Republican Sen. Paul Coverdell of Georgia authored the bill. He responded to the president's remarks.

SEN. PAUL COVERDELL: With all due respect, the president obviously has not read or been advised on the content of this legislation. And before he suggests a veto, he ought to take stock of the millions of Americans who stand to benefit from the bipartisan education reform package that's being debated on the Senate floor right now.

JIM LEHRER: And a vote on that bill is expected later this week. Microsoft today took its antitrust case to a federal appeals court in Washington today. It asked for the lifting of a lower court order that would force Microsoft to separate its Internet browser from its Windows operating system. Microsoft said the judge overstepped his authority by interfering with the company's freedom to improve its products. The Justice Department said tying the browser to Windows software is anti-competitive and plain wrong. The appellate court's ruling is expected within three months. Chinese dissident Wang Dan left a Detroit hospital today. Doctors gave him a clean bill of health after testing him further for a possible brain tumor. Wang headed to New York, where he's expected to speak to reporters on Thursday. Wang helped lead the 1989 pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square. He was sentenced to 11 years in prison in 1996 for plotting to overthrow the government. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said he was cautiously optimistic about reviving the Middle East peace process. He said he was willing to meet with Palestinian Leader Arafat face to face during talks scheduled in London early next month. Both are to meet separately with Secretary of State Albright. Netanyahu said they could lead to an additional Israeli troop pullout from the West Bank, but he said he did not want to raise expectations too much. Netanyahu spoke after meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose three-day trip to the region produced the agreement to meet in London. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to Senator McCain on the tobacco bill, the new evolution debate, credit unions versus the banks, and a David Gergen dialogue. NEWSMAKER - PACKAGING THE DEAL

JIM LEHRER: Phil Ponce sets the stage for Sen. McCain and the tobacco story.

PHIL PONCE: Senator John McCain went to the White House today as plans for comprehensive anti-smoking legislation have hit a series of roadblocks. On April 1st, the Senate Commerce Committee chaired by McCain passed its own tobacco legislation. That proposed bill would generate more than $500 billion dollars by raising the tax on cigarettes $1.10 within five years, restrict advertising by tobacco companies, impose major monetary penalties against the industry if there is not a decrease in teen smoking, and give the federal drug administration broad authority. But it did not protect cigarette makers from future class action lawsuits. The tobacco industry immediately vowed to fight the proposed legislation, claiming that it violated terms of the original deal between 40 state attorneys general and the tobacco companies.

GOLDSTONE: Well, instead of any real consideration of the merits of that settlement, Washington has rushed to collect more tobacco revenues while playing the politics of punishment, not only destroying the negotiated settlement but threatening to injure farming communities, retail store owners, and everyone else who participates in this $50 billion industry, as well as every adult who chooses to use these products. We are going to speak out and engage in a public policy debate on the issues that affect our industries and our customers.

AD SPOKESMAN: Last June there was an historic resolution of tobacco issues that would change the tobacco industry and reduced under-age use of tobacco products. Now politics has taken over.

PHIL PONCE: The industry has started an ad and lobbying campaign bringing together groups such as the National Restaurant Association, tobacco farmers, and the A-C-L-U. In recent days, Republican leaders have raised new concerns. Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott told reporters that tobacco is not a top priority for voters.

SEN. TRENT LOTT, Majority Leader: You know, I'm from a state that obviously has been involved in all this tobacco settlement issue, but as I travel around the state, nobody asks about that.

PHIL PONCE: Today on Capitol Hill, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who has called the Senate's bill too liberal, criticized President Clinton's approach to curbing teen smoking.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH, Speaker of the House: They want bigger bureaucracies. They want higher taxes. They want more government. What does that have to do with smoking? We're prepared to pass an anti-smoking bill. We're prepared to focus on stopping kinds from smoking. Now, does the President want to stop kids from smoking, or does he want a smoke screen behind which he gets higher taxes, bigger bureaucracy, and bigger government?

PHIL PONCE: Earlier this morning President Clinton addressed the messages coming from Capitol Hill.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: All of us have been talking about trying to get bipartisan agreement on that. The tobacco industry says they don't like the McCain bill, and they refuse to negotiate any further, and their fighting for their life, and this is war. And then all of a sudden we get different public statements coming out of people in important positions in the Republican Party. I still believe and hope that there will be enough Republicans to make a genuinely bipartisan effort to pass sensible, sound, strong legislation. And that is my commitment.

JIM LEHRER: Now to Sen. John McCain, Republican of Arizona, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. Senator, welcome.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN, Chairman, Commerce Committee: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: Senator, what's going on?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Well, I think this is kind of a natural occurrence. This is a very large bill. It's very encompassing, and there's controversy surrounding it. I think some people are very concerned for various reasons. As you know, there are some, like Sen. Kennedy and Congressman Waxman, that think it's not tough enough. Obviously, the speaker and others think that it's too tough or "too big." I think we're moving forward in a bipartisan fashion. I think we would do that, and I think we will satisfy the concerns of the American people about the fact that 3,000 kids start smoking every day and 1,000 of them are going to die early.

JIM LEHRER: Your meeting at the White House today, how would you characterize that meeting?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Very positive. We need to nail down details of the--of the bill. As you know, the White House has been generally supportive, and we needed to get the final agreement, and we're working in that direction, but also have, of course, the public health groups, the attorneys generals, the Democrats, and everybody.

JIM LEHRER: Did you make a deal with the president today? I mean, are you in sync on this bill?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: I think we're generally in sync. I think there's going to be a discussion about--the piece you ran earlier--about how the money is spent. I think there will be a lot of debate about the lawyers' fees. But I think the parameters of an agreement are there. Obviously, the House plays a very important role, but I hope we could move forward on the floor of the Senate. I think that Sen. Lott would like to do that, but he wouldn't like to move forward unless we have general and specific agreements.

JIM LEHRER: But do you feel you have agreement with the president on your bill?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: I believe that we are ironing out the differences that we have.

JIM LEHRER: All right now, how do you respond basically to Speaker Gingrich? On Friday--or over the weekend--it was actually broadcast over the weekend--he said your bill was very liberal, big government, big bureaucracy, not a Republican bill. He repeated that today, a tax increase for bigger government. That's a basic charge that he has about your bill. How do you respond?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Well, I hope that he'll examine the bill. I am a big intrigued, because a couple of weeks ago when we were in most intensive negotiations, the Speaker said that he wasn't "going to let Clinton get to the left of him on the issue." So I think there's been some shift there, but I think it's- -we will work together with the Speaker and the House because I think they share our commitment on this issue.

JIM LEHRER: Have you talked to the Speaker about this?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Not recently, no.

JIM LEHRER: Do you plan to?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: I'd be glad to. I have talked to others in the House. I've talked a lot with the Majority Leader and leadership here in the Senate.

JIM LEHRER: Now, the Majority Leader also said--we ran the piece--on the tape just now--he said nobody, at least in Mississippi, cares about this out in the country, at least in Mississippi.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: But I think the Majority Leader does care, and I think he would like to see us get a bill. Here's the point, I think. Everybody wants to be in agreement because we don't want a huge fight on the floor of the Senate, so there's got to be at least a majority bipartisan--along with the public health people and the administration and the attorney's generals in general agreement so that there's no devastating amendment which would bring this whole thing down. As you know, it's very complicated, and parts of it are dependent upon other parts, and not everybody's satisfied, but we-- I'm an eternal optimist, as you know.

JIM LEHRER: Well, but the politics of this seem to be--the lines--seem to be Democrats on one side, Republicans on the other, and you're a Republican, and you seem to be on the wrong side. Am I reading that wrong?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: I don't think so. I think that flies in the face of the fact that we had a nineteen to one vote in the Commerce Committee. Nearly 1/5 of the Senate voted in favor of this bill. Most Republicans are in favor of it. They obviously have specific concerns, but--and, again, I'm convinced from my conversations today with the Majority Leader that he would like to move forward with this bill. I think--I don't see a huge problem with Republicans, to tell you the truth. One of the problems with the Democrats is in the case of Sen. Kennedy--it's not tough enough.

JIM LEHRER: And also Doctors Koop and Kessler--former surgeon general--Dr. Koop--former head of the FDA, Dr. Kessler--the said it's not tough enough. You met with them yesterday, did you not?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Yes. And they gave me a list of the concerns that they have. They're supportive of a comprehensive solution, resolution. They gave me a letter from every previous surgeon general back to the early 70's saying we need a comprehensive settlement, and they think we can satisfy the majority of their concerns, at least we hope that we can.

JIM LEHRER: Did you hear anything from them that made you think, oh, my goodness, these guys are never going to get on board?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Oh, no, they were very appreciative of the effort that has been made, not just by me but the entire process in a bipartisan fashion, and they want to see it--a comprehensive resolution as well.

JIM LEHRER: Senator, also, as we reflected in our piece, the tobacco industry is really coming after your bill strongly, and it looks like it's going to get even stronger before this is over with. What impact is it having thus far?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Well, I thought it was a little bit disingenuous for them to take up the plight of the tobacco farmer. I went to South Carolina a couple of weeks ago and met with quite a few of them. But in the June 20th settlement, which was their settlement with the AG's, there was no mention of the tobacco farmers. I think they are attempting to use other entities to further their cause here because they know they themselves don't have much credibility. But I think you're going to see the public health groups and other advocacy organizations speaking out in support at least of the intent of the legislation, if not all the specifics.

JIM LEHRER: Did you and the folks at the White House discuss the need to respond to the tobacco industry assault?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Well, yes, but I think we're confident--and I think most of us who support the bill are confident that the American people will not be deceived by a campaign that basically flies in the face of the overwhelming majority opinion that we have to do something about kids smoking.

JIM LEHRER: And you think--you said it again tonight--you said it today--that this money issue that Speaker Gingrich and, in fact, House Majority Leader Lott also mentioned it in his news conference yesterday--that what the administration wants is to get their hands on that money and build bigger bureaucracies and all of that. Do you think you can circumvent that, you can get around that problem?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: I think when you look at the amount of money--even though it's huge--you will see that the majority of that money has to be spent on youth cessation programs, reimbursement to the states, compensation for the farmers. There's not a lot of money left over. I think--and we've made it clear to the White House--that the Republicans are strongly resistant and would not agree to creation of a new entitlement program. So we're only talking about a small amount of money, and I think we've made it clear to the White House, but I also--as I said earlier--I think that will be a discussion that Sen. Lott and Speaker Gingrich have with the president.

JIM LEHRER: Now, do you have an agreement with Sen. Lott for a vote, a scheduled vote on this bill anytime soon?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Sen. Lott would like to move forward, he told me, before the end of May, but he'd also like to have this package complete. And everybody--or at least a significant majority--on board, so that we can reach a conclusion on it, and we're not quite there yet.

JIM LEHRER: You don't have a majority of the Senate with you now.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Oh, I think it's not that. I think we've got to iron out the details. For example, we had support of the White House, but they kept saying it needs improvement. Now we know the areas where they want to have it improved. And it's not a final package yet, but, look, 80 percent of the American people want us to do something about smoking, and also for a much less patriot reason, as you know, there's lots of money out there to be spent, and it is a national issue, and I think one that we will address.

JIM LEHRER: Is this on the verge of becoming a political issue between Democrats and Republicans?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: I don't think so. I think that the Speaker's views are honestly held views and as are that of the White House, but I think the goal is the same, and, therefore, I think we will achieve it.

JIM LEHRER: And you're not the least big discouraged by what's happened since your bill came out of that Commerce Committee nineteen to one?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: If you would remember, the predictions of most of the pundits and most of the reporters in this town was that we would never get the bill through the Commerce Committee, if you might remember.

JIM LEHRER: I do remember that. You're right, sir.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: It doesn't have any chance. Do you remember that?

JIM LEHRER: I do indeed.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: But we worked together in a bipartisan, inclusive fashion. On an issue like these--like this one--that's the way you do it, and I'm confident that we will succeed over time, respecting the views of others and reducing these partisan attacks that are harmful to the process.

JIM LEHRER: So you're not about to give up on this?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Never.

JIM LEHRER: Thank you, Senator.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Thank you. FOCUS - TEACHING EVOLUTION

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, teaching evolution, banks versus credit unions, and a David Gergen dialogue. Margaret Warner has the evolution story.

MARGARET WARNER: The National Academy of Sciences has launched a campaign to urge the teaching of evolution in the nation's schools. Academy President Bruce Alberts explained why at a press conference earlier this month.

BRUCE ALBERTS: The National Academy of Sciences and our affiliated organizations have long been concerned with science education. We feel it's a very important element of our society, and that we have a ways to go--an important challenge to really improve the education we provide in science to our young people and the public understanding of science more generally. Particularly, this issue today reflects our concern about the failure to teach evolution adequately in our schools and the failure to understand why this is a important issue.

MARGARET WARNER: The main tool in this campaign is a new guidebook--called "Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science"--which the Academy is sending to science teachers and state science supervisors around the country. The guidebook's authors, a group of prominent scientists and educators, concluded that: "Many students receive little or no exposure to the most important concept in modern Biology, a concept essential to understanding key aspects of living-- biological evolution."

VOICE: He's kind of cute. Is he always going to stay yellow?

MARGARET WARNER: The guidebook is designed to help teachers integrate an understanding of the theory of evolution into their basic Biology instruction for students from kindergarten through grade twelve. The guidebook defines evolution this way: "Evolution in the broadest sense explains what we see today is different from what existed in the past. Biological evolution concerns changes in living things during the history of life on earth. It explains that living things share common ancestors. Over time, evolutionary change gives rise to new species. Charles Darwin called this process 'descent with modification,' and it remains a good definition of biological evolution today." In more than 140 pages, the guidebook explains the importance of teaching evolution; suggests how sensitive questions from children and parents can be answered; and outlines activities for integrating evolution into other science instruction. The guidebook maintains that a person can believe in God and still accept evolution. But more than 70 years after the historic conviction of teacher John Scopes for teaching evolution in a Tennessee school, there are still religiously-driven campaigns to limit the discussion of evolution in public schools. Many Christian conservatives believe schools should teach the biblical theory of creationism--that God created the earth, and all living things on it, in six days. Many others argue that creationism should at least be offered along with evolution as equally valid theories about the origins of life on earth. In 1987, the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that had required any public school teaching the theory of evolution to teach creationism as science too. The court said the law was unconstitutional because its purpose was "clearly to advance the religious viewpoint that a supernatural being created humankind." To date, 15,000 guidebooks have been given to teachers and science supervisors--and the Academy hopes to sell 25,000 more.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, four perspectives on this. Donald Kennedy is the former president of Stanford University, now an environmental sciences professor there. He headed the Academy panel that drew up the guidelines. Terry Spohn is a Biology professor and dean of the College of Arts & Sciences at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. Mark Witwer heads the science department at the Delaware County Christian School, a private school near Philadelphia; he teaches earth science. And Barbara Schulz teaches Biology at Lakeside School in Seattle and is past president of the National Association of Biology Teachers. She taught in public school for 25 years before going to Lakeside, which is private. Welcome all of you.Donald Kennedy, sum up. How would you describe evolution in its simplest terms, and why should it be taught in schools?

DONALD KENNEDY, Stanford University: Descent with modification is a pretty good summarizing phrase. Evolution explains how from relatively simple starting points and a fairly universal scheme of fundamental biochemistry, forms evolved in time and changed and diversified into somewhere between ten and thirty million species of plants and animals we have today. The reason why it's important to teach about evolution is that as one distinguished biologist put it 40 years ago, nothing else in Biology makes sense without understand evolution.

MARGARET WARNER: Terry Spohn, nothing else in Biology makes sense without understanding evolution?

TERRY SPOHN, Liberty University: Well, I view this effort as another attempt by the evolutionary community to brainwash the American public at the American taxpayer's expense. The point of the matter is that there are two possible explanations for how everything got here. One is rooted in naturalistic philosophy, which is the evolution view, and the other is that some intelligent designer created what we see about us. When Dr. Kennedy suggests that there is evidence from the fossil record for this change, that's simply not the case. Dr. Steven Jay Gould, a Harvard evolutionist in 1972, said that the fossil record was notable in two characteristics: stasis, which argues against change, that is, creatures appear on the fossil record and stay pretty much the same as they do when they disappear from the earth, and two, sudden appearance, that these creatures appear fully formed without a prior history. This argues for special creation, not evolution, and is contrary to those facts concerning the fossil record--since we have taxpayers that range from atheists to Zen Buddhists and everything in the middle, including Christians and followers of Islam, the only correct thing to do, the American thing to do, the democratic thing to do is to offer both of these models and let the students decide which one best explains origins.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. I want to get back to the validity of evolution, Terry, but can we first get Ms. Schulz's view of this, who teaches Biology. What is your sense of whether it is important or not to teach evolution in schools to children grades one through twelve.

BARBARA SCHULZ, High School Biology Teacher: I think it's absolutely critical to teach evolution and to teach evolution as one of the unifying principles that help explain the diversity that we have on the planet, as well as the continuity that we have. Evolution has to be taught as a science, and science demands evidence. We cannot deal with any ideas that are based on a belief system, and, therefore, the teaching of creationism does not fit that model of what a real science is. This booklet that has been produced by the National Academy I think has done a lot to enhance the teacher's position and to support the teacher by providing the prestige of the Academy and the support of the scientific community in that we are teaching science and evolution as a process and as an inquiry.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Witwer, what is your view of this basic debate?

MARK WITWER, High School Earth Science Teacher: Well, I come at this as a high school teacher and perhaps one of my major concerns is that although there are good things in the booklet--I read it and I like it very much and it's a good resource for explaining what evolution is all about and what it isn't--one of my concerns, though, is that a clear distinction needs to be made, and the booklet tends to downplay this, I think. It's not as clear as it needs to be for students. The distinction between the kinds of changes that we're talking about when we use the word evolution--if we say that nothing in Biology makes sense without evolution, I think what's often meant by that is that the small changes that produce variation in living things, like the different sizes and shapes of finch beaks in the Galapagos Islands, that's considered evolution and so are very, very large changes that might produce a whole different kind of living thing, such as whales from hoofed land mammals. That sort of thing is also called evolution and it's all usually or often presented as a package deal. You either accept the entire thing--both kinds of changes--or if you argue against the large changes--as creationists tend to do--you're accused of objecting to the smaller ones as well, and that's not the case. So creationists have a large reservation about the scale of the changes that the evidence in nature supports, and certainly supports strongly.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Kennedy, respond to both Mr. Witwer and Mr. Spohn on that point. Basically they're saying that evolution isn't--is a debatable theory as well, and why should it be presented as scientific fact, something that's absolutely essential to teaching science?

DONALD KENNEDY: Well, I can't respond to them together because I very much respected Mr. Witwer's response. He sounds like a very good teacher, and the distinction between large evolutionary steps and small ones is a problem for many students. The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that the same mechanisms can explain them and, in fact, we've had enormous success in finding transitional forms in the last ten or fifteen years, where formerly we lacked them, including transitional forms, in the very instance that Mr. Witwer talks about. As to the comment that--as to the equal time comment, my sense is that scientists have a deep respect for religion and for religious beliefs and that they would in no way require that students accept evolution as a substitute for those beliefs. But to understand science you have to understand evolution and at least understand the framework of logic that supports it. If on Sunday one wants to reject that, that's all right. We're not asking for equal time on Sunday.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Spohn, since the courts so far are saying that in public schools anyway creationism cannot be taught--I mean, that's sort of the bottom line of these decisions--are you saying then evolution shouldn't be either, or are you saying both should be taught? What are you saying exactly?

TERRY SPOHN: No. I'm saying that in the public forum where you have taxpayers that are atheists, Zen Buddhists, everything in between, these are two ideas that explain or attempt to explain how everything got here. One of the statements made in the workbook is that evolution answers or asks different questions than religion does. The problem with it is that evolution also answers those questions. They suggest to young people that everything that we see can get here by random chance processes operating on matter over a period of time. This is a very, very different conclusion, and we're talking about equal time. That is not equal time. In the public forum both models should be presented and let the students decide which one does the better job of interpreting the data. That's all I'm saying.

MARGARET WARNER: But the courts have said from a practical matter in the public schools both can't be presented, so where does that leave you?

TERRY SPOHN: Well, this is a problem with understanding the nature of belief. A number of top evolutionists are atheists. Atheism is a belief system that says there is no God. Evolutionists put themselves in a very interesting position these days. According to our understanding of modern genetics, evolution in terms of the transformation of one kind of an organism into another different kind of an organism takes place too slowly to occur, and yet in the fossil record the evolutionists tell us it took place to rapidly to be caught. Now, this puts the evolutionists in an interesting position in believing in something that they've not seen. And I find that no different than what they claim, for example, against the creationists.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. So Barbara Schulz, it goes back to that question: Is evolution--what can you say to demonstrate that evolution is more proven or more scientific than creationism if--do you accept that evolution also has some unknown elements and some unprovable elements?

BARBARA SCHULZ: Certainly, it's a very complex idea, and certainly various components of the idea of evolution are being debated among scientists today. There are many debates raging in many different areas. But those debates don't negate the fact that we have evidence for change in populations through time, and that's what we're saying that evolution is explaining. It's explaining the changes that occur in populations. It's explaining that there is variation in populations and not all of those variations survive from one generation to the next. So we're looking at the way that the genes that are carried with an individual in a population either get lost or get passed on to the next generation. The idea of evolution then helps students explain and understand how adaptations can occur. Probably one of the biggest misconceptions on the part of students and perhaps the general public is that an individual organism can adapt to its environment when, in effect, this not the case at all, it's that gene pools, all of those genes within a population, living at a specific time, change from one time period to the next. They change gradually. They change based on influences of the environment and impacts of other organisms. Students need to understand that as a process.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Let me get Mr. Witwer back in this.Mr. Witwer, do you think that a belief in evolution and a belief in a divine creator are necessarily exclusive? I mean, are they always going to be in conflict, or could they be reconciled?

MARK WITWER: I think it's important for students to understand that any kind of an explanation of ultimate origins, which this is about, of course, this is a little different than discussing about gravitation or the nature of the atom in that just by the nature of dealing with the origin of life and then the diversification of life over time, you're dealing with a different kind of issue, and it's just loaded deep with philosophical implications. I think students need to understand that much of what drives some of the evolutionary thinking, not all of it, and I don't mean to broad brush evolutionists, but much of what drives some of this is naturalism, belief that nature is all there is, and so necessarily we must be able to find natural explanations for everything. We can and we must. It's sort of assumed, where creationism--starting from a different starting point we'll look at the evidence and see where it takes us but we don't have to have a natural explanation for everything. And if the evidence seems to lead elsewhere, which I think it does in the case of large changes, then we don't have a problem saying it may be something science can't study. We're not talking about bringing religion into the classroom in the sense of saying now we'll tell you what did it, but it just automatically takes you to the point of saying this may be something science is not able to answer.

MARGARET WARNER: In other words, there may be things that are unknowable or not explainable?

MARK WITWER: There may be limits to what we can do. What do we do with the evidence, itself, for large changes now we're talking about. Much of our discussion has been about small changes which no one really debates. What do we do if the evidence is taking in one direction, and materialistic philosophy, naturalism, the belief in nature is all there is--is taking somewhere else. That's a rather uncomfortable position to be in if you're not able to at least say maybe there's something going on here that science isn't able to address.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Kennedy, what do you say to that?

DONALD KENNEDY: I think much of the creation/science argument, as it calls itself, is not nearly as thoughtful as what we just heard. I think it consists quite largely of arguments about what is missing from evolution, and I think no scientist would attempt to claim that we have the whole story, just that we have an extraordinarily robust theory accompanied by and derived from a whole range of observations and experiments that does explain organic diversity. As to the differences of opinion, we heard about Steven J. Gould. In fact, Steven J. Gould in this booklet disavows the interpretation that we've just heard.

MARGARET WARNER: From Mr. Spohn.

DONALD KENNEDY: Yes. He has some differences of view about tempo and mode in evolution. But he is by no means arguing with the structure of the fundamental hypothesis, as indeed most scientists are. The last point I want to make us to do with this alleged conflict between science and religion. Look, most scientists I know are spiritual and are serious about it, and most of the world's great religions accept evolution and have no problem with it. This is not a broad conflict between theological conviction and science; it's just not.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. I'm sorry. We'll have to leave it there. Thank you all four very much. FOCUS - TURF WAR

JIM LEHRER: Now, banks versus credit unions. Tom Bearden reports.

TOM BEARDEN: Rene Siegfried says she owes her freedom to the AT&T Family Credit Union in Asheboro, North Carolina. She was going through a divorce in 1992 and needed a loan to buy out her ex-husband's share of the equity in their house. She says the credit union was the only place that would even consider loaning her money. Without it, she would have lost control of her home.

RENE SIEGFRIED: My husband and I, at the time, were on very bad terms. This would have gave him control of the house again when it was just me and my children here. So--

TOM BEARDEN: So it bailed you out?

RENE SIEGFRIED: It bailed me out. It let him stay on his side of town and I could stay over here.

TOM BEARDEN: Providing people with financial services that might otherwise be denied is what credit unions were designed for. The 1934 Federal Credit Union Act made it possible for people who shared a common bond--like working for the same company--or who shared an occupation--like teaching--to pool their resources and provide small loans to each other. Congress considered this an important social service, and granted tax exemptions to credit unions. This allowed them to charge lower fees for services and lower interest rates on loans. But only companies with more than 500 employees could qualify. The credit union landscape changed dramatically in 1982. Economic times were tough. Factories around the country were closing, and so were credit unions. So the agency that regulates credit unions, the National Credit Union Administration, began allowing them to sign up people who worked for several different companies. In effect, the common bond requirement had been replaced. People who worked for many different companies--some too small to form their own credit union--could now join institutions like AT&T Family, regardless of the type of job they did. In the late 1980's, the AT&T Credit Union opened a branch office in Asheboro, and began recruiting new members in several local factories. One of them was the Klaussner furniture plant where Rene Siegfried works. She was just one of some 15 million people who were allowed to join credit unions as a result of the new multiple common bond definition. But Mike Miller saw those new accounts as athreat to the very existence of his business. He's the president of the First National Bank of Asheboro.

MIKE MILLER, President, First National Bank & Trust: When you cease serving a single employer as an occupational-based credit union, you cease being a credit union; you have lost your identity. AT&T Credit Union serving furniture companies, battery workers, casket makers, telephone workers, Coca- Cola bottlers, Duke Power, people like that, they literally have lost their identity as a credit union. They're no longer a credit union. They're a bank.

TOM BEARDEN: And because credit unions enjoy that exemption from some of the taxes that banks have to pay, Miller and other bankers saw them as unfair competition.

MIKE MILLER: I really don't believe that the furniture workers and the battery workers would appreciate it if an agency of their own government set up a competitor across the street, doing virtually the identical business, and gave them a complete tax exemption. In that case, the furniture worker would lose jobs; the battery worker, the shoe worker, would lose jobs. In the situation of community banks, yes, it is a survival issue.

TOM BEARDEN: So the bankers went to court. In February, after eight years of litigation, the Supreme Court ruled in their favor. The court said congress intended for occupation-based credit unions to serve a single company. Now it's the credit unions who say their survival is threatened. Marcus Schaefer is president and CEO of the AT&T Family Credit Union.

MARCUS SCHAEFER, CEO, AT&T Family Credit Union: It would have the effect of prohibiting us from extending affordable financial services to this community and others.

TOM BEARDEN: And in effect, attrition would eventually run you out of business?

MARCUS SCHAEFER: I think that's a fair representation--that little by little, things like direct deposit payroll from those employers, at some point if they have--less than half their employee base is able to get direct deposit to the credit union, they're going to ask why do we have this relationship.

TOM BEARDEN: The credit unions have gone to Congress for relief. The AT&T Credit Union staged a rally in Asheboro to seek public support and to petition the state's congressional delegation to undo the Supreme Court decision and allow the continued expansion of their industry. of their industry. The bankers are fighting back, arguing that the only fair thing to do is level the playing field by eliminating credit unions' tax-exempt status. But AT&T's Schaefer says the exemption is there for reason--to provide financial services to working people who otherwise wouldn't have access to credit at reasonable rates.

MARCUS SCHAEFER: If they can come to the credit union and cash their payroll check without having to pay a fee, if they can have a checking account, if they can borrow for a car at affordable rates, then they have an opportunity to build a financial future that they might not otherwise have."

TOM BEARDEN: Schaeffer says people of modest means can't afford to do business with banks.

MARCUS SCHAEFER: Unfortunately many of these workers don't have the minimum deposit that the banks require, which, if you're fortunate, that would be a hundred dollars. In many cases it's much, much more than that. In addition, almost all banks charge a minimum monthly fee for having these types of account relationships. And $7.50 would be considered low. Unfortunately a number of our members don't have that extra money; they don't have the initial deposit; and they cant afford to pay the monthly fee.

MIKE MILLER: I disagree very violently that there are people out there who cannot afford our services. We have extremely low-cost options at our bank.

TOM BEARDEN: For example?

MIKE MILLER: For example, the minimum balance to get no service charge checking here is either $300 in checking; or we have another product, if you have direct deposit of your paycheck, it's no service charge for checking at all. We also have another product that for a flat fee of $7.50 per month you get unlimited no-service charge checking, plus we buy your checks as well.

TOM BEARDEN: Miller says small community banks like his deserve public support because they also provide a valuable social service by serving people like Keith Crisco. The First National Bank provided the capital to start up his elastic factory by helping him get a Small Business Administration loan, which credit unions don't normally make. He thinks he got extraordinary help.

KEITH CRISCO, Small Business Owner: We approached several banks. This bank locally worked with us, assisted us in our financial planning, helped us go after our initial loan with an SBA guaranteed loan, and was just critical to our startup.

TOM BEARDEN: Ultimately Congress will decide the issue. On April 1st, the House overwhelmingly approved a bill that overturns the Supreme Court decision. A bitter grassroots lobbying battle was waged, but the credit unions and their 70,000 members clearly prevailed in the House, where no member spoke against the bill.

REP. BERNARD SANDERS, [I] Vermont: At a time of increasing bank fees, increasing ATM fees, increasing credit card fees, increasing minimum balance requirements, and the loss of many locally owned banks to large, multi-billion dollar corporate institutions, credit unions today are more important than they have ever been. HR-1151 will go a long way toward ensuring the long-term viability of credit unions, of allowing credit unions to expand, rather than to contract and wither away, which is clearly the goal of many large banks.

TOM BEARDEN: The issue now moves to the Senate, where the chairman of the banking committee is drifting a similar bill. A committee vote is expected by the end of the month. DIALOGUE

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, a Gergen dialogue. David Gergen, editor-at-large of U.S. News & World Report, engages Barbara Goldsmith, author of "Other Powers: The Age of Suffrage, Spiritualism, and the Scandalous Victoria Woodhull."

DAVID GERGEN: Barbara, you've written an eye-opening book about social life in the 19th century, but nothing surprised me more to hear in full detail about the conditions of women.

BARBARA GOLDSMITH, Author, Other Powers: Well, in "Other Powers" it starts in 1838, when Victoria Woodhull is born, and at that time, sure women couldn't vote, but they also couldn't own property; they couldn't go to college. If there was a divorce, they couldn't get custody of their children. If they ran away, there were laws on the books that said, if you sheltered them, you went to jail, and more than that, this was very shocking. In sixteen states they stipulated the size of the instruments you could beat your wife or child with if you were mad because they didn't want these women and children being killed. Women were chattel, and they could not deny their husbands sexual access. So many of them were pregnant yearly. They died young. And it was a pretty tough condition for women in 1838, when Victoria was born. And it didn't improve much for a long time.

DAVID GERGEN: Many of these women turned to other powers, to spiritualism.

BARBARA GOLDSMITH: Yes.

DAVID GERGEN: To find more power in their own life?

BARBARA GOLDSMITH: Yes. Well, I think even the strongest women, the suffragists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, they were up against it, and they needed such--to find strength somewhere. And in a belief in the spirit they felt empowered, and anyone could now say--not only do I say this--but Demosthenes says it, Plato agrees with me, and they really felt empowered in a world where they had no war power.

DAVID GERGEN: And yet, when the women who were trying to break out of this condition of servitude, seeking women's rights in the 1850's and 1860's, when it came to the phase just after the Civil War and the debates occurred about blacks and freeing slaves, it was interesting how women were pitted against blacks and whose rights would go first.

BARBARA GOLDSMITH: It was really fascinating because many of these women had been among the most forward- looking abolitionists. They hated slavery. Many of them had run stations on the underground railroad. But when it came to getting the vote, the 15th Amendment gave it to black males and not to women. And it broke the women's movement apart, because certain women said why, you're going to let somebody who was property three years ago, now walk through that gate and not have women walk through with him, and the others--the New England group said, oh, look, if anyone can get out of this terrible pit, let them go first. And Horace Greeley said, this is the Negro's hour; women will have to wait. And it split the women's movement in a very divisive way.

DAVID GERGEN: But they did go forward with the black rights, first with the 15thAmendment.

BARBARA GOLDSMITH: Yes.

DAVID GERGEN: And it took some time then before women got the right to vote.

BARBARA GOLDSMITH: Yes. It took another 70 years till 1920 till the 16thAmendment, the Susan B. Anthony Amendment, and women were given the vote.

DAVID GERGEN: Well, onto this scene in the 1860's, 1870's, bursts Victoria Woodhull, one of the most colorful characters of the 19thcentury. Who was she?

BARBARA GOLDSMITH: Well, she was very complicated. She was a woman who had been brought up in abject poverty, beaten, starved, sexually abused by her father, and when she came to New York, and "Other Powers" tells you about her adventures, she made a lot of money under the auspices of Commodore Vanderbilt. And she decided to relieve the condition of women and of society. She said, I'm going to create "a social revolution." And she sure did. But in 1872, she ran for president against Horace Greeley and Ulysses S. Grant. And that was her downfall because all of her past was revealed. She became known as the prostitute who ran for president.

DAVID GERGEN: The social revolution that she tried to create, tell us about her relationship with that and how far she got.

BARBARA GOLDSMITH: She wanted to have a society where women would get equal wages; they would marry for love; there would be custody rights and divorce. She wanted absolute equality. If a man committed adultery, it didn't mean anything. If a woman committed adultery, she wore a scarlet letter over her heart and could get a jail sentence. Victoria said everybody should love anyone they want any time. That was pretty radical even for today. She wanted--she was a discipline of Karl Marx and printed the Communist Manifesto in her own newspaper. She would be considered a woman at least a hundred years ahead of her time and maybe even radical for today when you read about the colorful life she had and how it interacted with the politics and the social history of that period.

DAVID GERGEN: She had her own newspaper with her system.

BARBARA GOLDSMITH: Yes.

DAVID GERGEN: Did she have a larger following than Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, the two women we do remember so well today?

BARBARA GOLDSMITH: At first her standing was because they allied themselves with her and they really put her on this trajectory of climbing and climbing. But then they broke with her when they found out about her scandalous reputation and the fact that she was trying to blackmail people who would not support her, and then they broke with her. But Elizabeth Cady Stanton later wrote she has done more for women than any one of us could possibly imagine, and then she said she struggled through brambles and leaped fences we wouldn't even try.

DAVID GERGEN: You--in writing about it with so much passion, you clearly think that her life, Victoria Woodhull's life has relevance for today.

BARBARA GOLDSMITH: Yes, I think it has relevance as a life. I also feel that she stood up the establishment, and anyone who comes forward and really challenges the status quo is somebody that should be heard because it makes people think, and then I also think she was brought down by the oldest methods in the world, which could apply today, which were this kind of sexual scandalous thing, which was used to pull politicians down. And so I think she was a very modern woman and a very flawed woman. I don't want you to think that I think she was some sort of storybook heroine, but she was very human. And I think she did a lot for society and for women, and she certainly was the guide for me to illuminate this enormous age of suffrage and spiritualism. At one point there were 10 million spiritualists in this country. And I think right now the spiritualist movement is gaining impetus again. And I think if you read "Other Powers," you'll find out why.

DAVID GERGEN: Can we ask you why. Last question.

BARBARA GOLDSMITH: You certainly can. I love it.

DAVID GERGEN: Last question.

BARBARA GOLDSMITH: Because in a time when there are strange forces that people cannot understand, it started when Morse Code was coming to Rochester, people couldn't see it, they couldn't understand it. I think we live in a time of technology that a lot of us can't understand, in a time when people feel they cannot control their own destiny, that the individual no longer makes a difference, and a time when Emerson wrote there used to be community, and now there's distance. People need to feel there's something out there that empowers them and makes it all right. And spiritualism is an answer.

DAVID GERGEN: Barbara Goldsmith, social historian, thank you very much.

BARBARA GOLDSMITH: Thank you. RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Tuesday, on the NewsHour tonight tobacco bill sponsor Senator John McCain said the parameters of a legislative agreement with the Clinton administration appear to be in place. He said he would work with Republican leaders to win their support. The president threatened to veto tax breaks for private school tuition, and Microsoft appealed a federal court order to separate its Internet browser from its Windows operating system. We'll see you on-line and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.