Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

The new anti-science assault on US schools
Katherine Stewart
Guardian.co.uk, Sunday 12 February 2012 14.00 GMT

In a disturbing trend, anti-evolution campaigners are combining with climate change deniers to undermine public education

Comments (1272)


Charles Darwin, circa 1854: 12 February, his birthday, is marked by International Darwin Day. Photograph: Corbis

You might have thought it was all over after the 2005 decision by the US district court of Middle Pennsylvania (pdf), which ruled in the case of the Dover Area schools that teaching intelligent design is unconstitutional. You might have guessed that they wouldn't come back after the 1987 US supreme court decision in Edwards v Aguillard, which deemed the teaching of creationism in Louisiana schools unconstitutional. Or maybe you figured that the opponents of evolution had their Waterloo in the 1925 Scopes "monkey" trial in Tennessee.

They are back. There are six bills aimed at undermining the teaching of evolution before state legislatures this year: two each in New Hampshire and Missouri, one each in Indiana and Oklahoma. And it's only February.

For the most part, the authors of these bills are singing a song we've heard before. Jerry Bergevin, the Republican sponsor of one of the New Hampshire bills, says of evolution that "It's a worldview and it's godless." He blames the teaching of evolution for Nazism and Columbine. Josh Brecheen, the sponsor of the Oklahoma bill, wants to stop the teaching of "the religion of evolution." These legislators, and their colleagues in Missouri and Indiana, trot out the hoary line that evolution is "just a theory" and that real science means saying that every point of view is just as good as any other.

Most of these bills aren't likely to get anywhere. The Indiana bill, which specifically proposes the teaching of "creation science", so obviously falls foul of the supreme court's 1987 ruling that it's hard to imagine it getting out of committee. The same could be said for the Missouri bill, which calls for the "equal treatment" of "biological evolution and biological intelligent design".

Still, it's worth asking: why is this happening now? Well, in part, it's just that anti-evolution bills are an indicator of the theological temperature in state houses, and there is no question that the temperature has been rising. New Hampshire, Indiana, Oklahoma, and Missouri turned deeper shades of red in the 2010 elections, as did the US Congress.

But there are a couple of new twists that make this same-old story more interesting than usual. One has to do with the temperature in a less metaphorical sense. The Oklahoma bill isn't properly speaking just an "anti-evolution" bill; it is just as opposed to the "theory" of "global warming". A bill pending in Tennessee likewise targets "global warming" alongside "biological evolution". These and other bills aim their rhetoric at "scientific controversies" in plural, and one of the New Hampshire bills does not even bother to specify which controversies it has in mind.

The convergence here is, to some degree, cultural. It just so happens that the people who don't like evolution are often the same ones who don't want to hear about climate change. It is also the case that the rhetoric of the two struggles is remarkably similar – everything is a "theory", and we should "teach the controversy". But we also cannot overlook the fact is that there is a lot more money at stake in the climate science debate than in the evolution wars. Match those resources with the passions aroused by evolution, and we may have a new force to be reckoned with in the classroom. ....<cont>

The Nashua Telegraph's science columnist revisits the two antievolution bills recently prefiled in the New Hampshire legislature. David Brooks, who writes the "Granite Geek" column for the Telegraph, interviewed the sponsors of both bills in July 2011 before the bills were actually drafted, and then concluded (July 3, 2011), "My taxpayer dollars pay science teachers to teach science, not philosophy. Let's hope lawmakers don't try to get in the way." After examining the text of the bills as introduced, his conclusion is if anything firmer: "Both of these bills should die a quick and deserving death," he now writes (January 2, 2012).

Under examination are House Bill 1457 (which would charge the state board of education to "[r]equire science teachers to instruct pupils that proper scientific inquire [sic] results from not committing to any one theory or hypothesis, no matter how firmly it appears to be established, and that scientific and technological innovations based on new evidence can challenge accepted scientific theories or modes") and House Bill 1148 (which would charge the state board of education to "[r]equire evolution to be taught in the public schools of this state as a theory, including the theorists' political and ideological viewpoints and their position on the concept of atheism").

With regard to HB 1457, introduced by Gary Hopper (R-District 7) and John Burt (R-District 7), Brooks wrote, "At best, it seems to say 'instruct pupils that proper scientific inquiry results from proper scientific inquiry' — which is true, if not exactly useful. At worst, though, it seems to say something like 'you can disregard any scientific theory if it is challenged.'” He observed that just as creationism challenges evolution, so astrology challenges physics, homeopathy challenges chemistry, the Hollow Earth theory challenges plate tectonics, and so on. "Ridiculous, of course. But if a law that vague got on the books, it's not out of the question."

With regard to HB 1148, introduced by Jerry Bergevin (R-District 17), Brooks observed that the idea of teaching evolution "as a theory" is "standard creationist fare," but the idea of requiring students to be told about the political and ideological viewpoints of scientists "seems downright ludicrous" — "Who are 'the theorists' that Bergevin wants polled about politics, ideology and atheism? Every scientist in the world whose work touches on evolution — all several million of them? Every biology teacher in New Hampshire? Anybody who has read [James D. Watson's memoir of the discovery of the structure of DNA] 'The Double Helix'?"

but the idea of requiring students to be told about the political and ideological viewpoints of scientists "seems downright ludicrous" —

The next Science Cafe New Hampshire comes up Wednesday, discussing Seasonal Affective Disorder - the "winter blues" if you will. A psychologist and psychiatrist will be there as the experts to be peppered by your questions.

It should be of interest whether you're affected by SAD, know somebody who might be affected, are completely ignorant of the topic, or even doubt that "winter blues" is a real disorder. Judging from the high quality of the previous Science Cafes, even if you don't particularly care one way or the other it will be worthwhile: There's something so invigorating about having a good beer and burger while listening to intelligent people discuss a topic that they actually know something about - instead of merely ranting along based on casual heresay, which tends to be the level of public discourse these days.

I will miss this one - it's the first Science Cafe that I haven't been able to moderate - but you shouldn't.

NCSE ARTCLE FROM Feb 9, 2012

Quote:

... including the theorists' political and ideological viewpoints and their position on the concept of atheism").