Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

While there are plenty of jobs for biologists, he said, "there are zero creationist jobs. Zero."

While there are plenty of jobs for biologists, he said, "there are zero creationist jobs. Zero."

Dunn-backed bill slammed by ACLU leader
(By Tom Humphrey, Knoxville News-Sentinel, February 27, 2011)

NASHVILLE — An American Civil Liberties Union leader says a bill sponsored by Rep. Bill Dunn, R-Knoxville, is a backdoor means of promoting the teaching of creationism and the debunking of evolution in Tennessee schools.

In a House Education Subcommittee meeting, the measure was also criticized by Jerry Winters, lobbyist for the Tennessee Education Association, as a 'lawyer's dream' containing 'some of the most convoluted language I've ever seen in a bill.'

Dunn said the measure — HB368 — is simply a move to help students become 'critical thinkers' on scientific subjects and that opponents are trying to 'get off on some tangent' by wrongfully saying 'we think there may be something hidden in there.'

The bill itself says it would apply to science subjects causing controversy, 'including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.' Some teachers, the bill says, 'may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects.'

It then declares that the state Board of Education and local school officials 'shall endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions.'

Further, it declares that state and local officials cannot 'prohibit any teacher in a public school system … from helping students understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses in existing science theories.'

Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the ACLU in Tennessee, said the bill was reminiscent of the 1925 'Monkey Trial' of a Dayton, Tenn., teacher charged with violating the state's law of the time prohibiting the teaching of evolution.

'This legislation, we believe, is the latest line of attack against evolution in a long-standing campaign,' she said, declaring the bill 'riddled with various euphemisms' used by promoters of creationism or intelligent design who 'seek to subvert scientific principle to religious ideology.'

Weinberg said the measure, if passed, would infringe on constitutional rights by effectively promoting religion in classrooms.

Rep. Harry Brooks, R-Knoxville, noted a provision in the bill declaring it 'shall not be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine.' With that as part of the bill, Brooks said, he believes it 'expands First Amendment rights.'

Robin Zimmer of Knoxville spoke to the subcommittee in support of the bill, citing a report that said only 28 percent of science students nationwide are proficient in the subject at grade level and that the United States ranks '31st in the world in scientific education.' He declared that promotion of critical thinking would 'start turning those statistics around.'

Zimmer identified himself as a scientist who previously headed a research company on genetics and has learned that many scientific theories are refuted by more research triggered by critical thinking. He did not give his current affiliation in testimony to the subcommittee. The website of Center for Faith and Science International, which states a belief in God as creator of the universe as a core principle, refers to Zimmer as director.

A vote on the bill was postponed, with Democrats on the panel saying they wanted to hear more testimony on exactly what the bill does and its impact on teaching.

NASHVILLE — An American Civil Liberties Union leader says a bill sponsored by Rep. Bill Dunn, R-Knoxville, is a backdoor means of promoting the teaching of creationism and the debunking of evolution in Tennessee schools.

Legislation may hurt science studies
(George Webb, Opinion Essay, The Tennessean, March 1, 2011)

As a historian of science, I find the most recent effort to compromise the quality of science teaching in the public schools (House Bill 386) both curious and disquieting.

Such bills have been introduced in nearly 40 states in the past seven years and are patterned on model legislation developed by anti-evolution organizations such as the Discovery Institute. Louisiana remains the only state to have enacted a statute of this type, but scientific organizations were harshly critical of this action.

A comparison of HB 386 with such legislation reveals many identical statements and ideas. Despite this bill's inclusion of such phrases as "critical thinking skills'' and its focus on the examination of controversies in science, HB 386 seeks to marginalize certain topics in the science curriculum.

To be sure, history reveals many examples of controversies that could be used in science classes to illustrate the scientific pursuit.

One of the most dramatic is the long debate between supporters of the Earth-centered and sun-centered universe.

When Copernicus announced his sun-centered system in 1543, he provided a slightly simpler model, but it was no more accurate than competing Earth-centered systems.

The key to the solar system puzzle came more than 70 years later, when Johannes Kepler showed that more accurate descriptions of planetary motion required a system based on elliptical rather than circular orbits around the sun.

Until Kepler's work, supporters of Earth-centered and sun-centered planetary systems could claim equal accuracy, thus creating a dramatic astronomical controversy.

Such controversies are not the ones addressed by HB 386, however. Rather, it focuses on scientific topics — evolution is listed first in the bill — that "can cause controversy.''

These topics do, indeed, precipitate heated debates and discussions, but primarily within the context of politics, economics or religion.

As such, the "controversial'' nature of such topics would be an appropriate and valuable addition to classes in history, social studies, government or comparative religions.

But to argue, as this bill does, that similar controversies exist among scientists reveals an inadequate grasp of the history and practice of science.

House Bill 386 also presents practical difficulties for science teachers and their students.

If teachers are expected to examine these so-called controversies in the science classroom, they will obviously have less opportunity to discuss the topics included in the Tennessee Science Framework, the document that guides science teaching in the public schools.

This document reflects the science education consensus in the United States, which has been developed by leading educational and scientific organizations. As a result, Tennessee students will be subjected to a flawed science education.

American students consistently perform at an embarrassingly low level in international studies of science and mathematics education.

The solution to this difficulty must be found in improving science education.

It is difficult to imagine how teaching less science so that so-called controversies may be included in the curriculum will result in greater scientific knowledge.

Surely, Tennessee students deserve better.