|Page 2 of 2 <|
Teachers, Scientists Vow to Fight Challenge to Evolution
The science organizations concede that the anti-evolution forces have a catchier message. "Teach the controversy" and "Evolution is a theory, not a fact," resonate with many Americans who tell pollsters that God -- working alone or with evolutionary theory -- shaped the world. Discovery Institute geophysicist Stephen C. Meyer calls efforts to change standards "an academic freedom proposal."
"Intelligent design has no scientific credibility, but they very effectively market a controversy," said Steven B. Case, head of the Kansas science standards committee. "They speak well in sound bites. 'Intelligent design' is a good one. They never specify a designer."
"They appeal to this very nice social science notion of things: 'Oh, just give the kids the information and they'll decide.' There isn't a scientific debate and there's nothing for the kids to weigh. They say there's a controversy. We say there's not. So they say, 'See, we told you there's a controversy.' You get into these ridiculous rhetorical games."
Scientists have used tools including carbon dating and genomic maps to demonstrate how evolution works. Although pieces are missing, experts in such fields as paleontology, molecular biology and biochemistry consider the evidence undeniable. To critics who dismiss evolution as a "theory," scientists reply that a theory, in scientific parlance, is a unifying concept -- such as gravity or electricity -- repeatedly tested and affirmed.
Evolution's foes are united in suspicion of evolution's explanatory power even if they differ about how the world developed. Some favor the biblical version that God made Earth several thousand years ago. Others assert that science and evolutionary theory are simply inadequate to explain life's complexity.
"Allow criticism of Darwinian evolution. Definitely let kids know about biases and assumptions that can affect interpretations," said researcher and Kansas science standards committee member William Harris. He believes God "played a role at some defined point."
The NCSE is tracking challenges in nearly 20 states. The debate is often over wording.
At the national level, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) demonstrated political savvy envied by scientists when he proposed an addition to the No Child Left Behind education bill in 2001: "Where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions."
The measure seemed innocuous enough and a "sense of the Senate" action passed 91 to 8. Only later did science groups conclude that Santorum, working with the Discovery Institute, sought to create an opening in how evolution would be taught.
"When it was first introduced, we didn't really understand it. He did it at the eleventh hour, and we didn't know it was coming," said Jodi L. Peterson, legislative director of the National Science Teachers Association. Her group and others mobilized to quash it, but the language remained in the bill's nonbinding conference report.
In Albuquerque, Berman, a Sandia National Laboratories physicist, noted his opponents' determination in 1998 after the New Mexico education board removed evolution from its teaching standards. Appalled, he ran for office and helped reverse the decision, but the issue was soon back. Evolution's foes, he said, "interpreted any statement . . . as an opening to teach intelligent design."
In one closely fought duel, the Minnesota House last year agreed to place a benchmark in the life science section of the state standards saying that students must understand how new evidence and technology "can challenge portions or entire accepted theories and models, including but not limited to cell theory, theory of evolution and germ theory of disease."
Opponents forced a compromise in which the language was removed from life science and included in a section on the history of science. State officials and the NCSE's Scott said each side got enough to declare victory.
Here in Kansas, where the fight has raged for six years, the evolution forces won a round this year when a 26-member science standards committee refused to open the teaching of evolution to contrary views, which the majority considered unscientific. Steve Abrams, leader of the state board's conservative majority, then said the board intended to change the standards anyway, as the law allows.
He scheduled four days of courtroom-style hearings that will be boycotted by Kansas scientists, along with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general science organization and publisher of the journal Science. The AAAS said the hearings "will most likely serve to confuse the public."
Scientists tested several arguments at an April 21 meeting in Lawrence, playing off the state decision to spend at least $500 million to develop the bioscience industry. They predicted that a change in the curriculum would cripple state firms in the exceedingly competitive bioscience field, holding back the Kansas economy.
Paleontologist Leonard Krishtalka called intelligent design "nothing more than creationism in a cheap tuxedo." He said the adoption of new standards would hurt the University of Kansas's ability to recruit faculty and students.
"There's a great deal of hesitancy. They don't see this as a nurturing academic environment for themselves or their kids," said Krishtalka, director of the university's Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center. "It is ridiculous to backtrack to the 1700s and subvert our education to superstition and religion."