More "Settled Science"?
Posted on 04/02/2011 2:11:31 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
Now, more than 80 years after the famous "Scopes Monkey Trial" in Tennessee, creationism proponents are pushing for state legislation there that could make it easier for teachers to bring unscientific ideas back into the science classroom in public schools. To bolster their cause, the backers of the new bills are invoking none other than teacher John Scopes, the trial's pro-evolution defendant, as an icon of independent thinking.
"…[T]oday's evolutionary scientists have become the modern-day equivalents of those who tried to silence Rhea County schoolteacher John Scopes for teaching evolution in 1925, by limiting even an objective discussion of the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory," David Fowler, head of the Family Action Council of Tennessee and chief lobbyist behind Tennessee's proposed anti-evolution bill, wrote recently in an op–ed in the Chattanoogan.
Scopes had been charged with violating the Butler Act, which prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools. Thus, creationists say, he certainly would have supported a law that encouraged the teaching of all sides of "controversial issues"—such as the bill some are working to pass in Tennessee as part of a post–intelligent design (ID) campaign to teach the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution. If adopted, this language would send a positive message to teachers inclined to introduce creationism and ID into the classroom when discussing biology and the origins of life.
Trouble in Tennessee
Following the drubbing they received in the constitutional test case of Tammy Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District in Pennsylvania five years ago (which kept explicit teaching of intelligent design, or ID, out of public schools) creationists shelved the ID language—at least publicly—and shifted their approach. More recently, they have tried to codify versions of the "strengths and weaknesses" language in states across the country—an effort that has so far met with limited success. The closest that creationists came to getting such terminology on the books was in 2008 in Louisiana, where an initial "academic freedom" bill included the phrase, but was replaced with more watered-down language that nonetheless left the door open to teaching creationism, some science educators say.
Texas's State Board of Education (SBOE) tried to preserve ambiguous language in its science curriculum in 2009. (The wording had been on the books since the 1990s, having originally been inserted as a compromise to appease creationists.) But after religious conservative members of the board were unable to garner majority support, they dropped it in favor of phrases, albeit also dubious, that included the statement students should "analyze and evaluate the sufficiency of scientific explanations concerning any data of sudden appearance, stasis and the sequential nature of groups in the fossil records."
The home state of the Scopes Trial is now on the verge of adopting the "strengths and weakness" language with the February 8 introduction of House Bill 368 (pdf). A week later, its identical counterpart, SB 893, was introduced in the senate. Whereas similar bills in Oklahoma and New Mexico have already perished in committee this year, observers are watching Tennessee's developments warily.
The fact that it's moving so quickly is a matter of concern," says Josh Rosenau, a spokesperson for the National Center for Science Education, a watchdog organization that monitors attacks on classroom teaching of evolution. "There appears to be some momentum behind it, which suggests it could pass."
Strengths and weaknesses
As with other anti-evolution bills, the Tennessee legislation does not actually mandate the inclusion of creationist or ID teachings. Rather, it says that educators may not be prohibited from "helping students understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught."
As in the Louisiana law, those theories can include "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming and human cloning." The bill goes on to say that this only applies to scientific information, and is not "to be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine."
On the surface, the language looks like something that all scientists would gladly embrace: Promote critical thinking? Certainly! But opponents of the legislation say that the bills' backers intent is instead designed to undercut the teaching of evolution and open doors to creationism and intelligent design.
As with other anti-evolution bills, Tennessee's seems to be based on sample legislation written and promoted by the pro-ID Discovery Institute.
Sponsor Rep. Bill Dunn (R–Knoxville) said Fowler submitted the legislation to him in early February. The latter's organization is associated with James Dobson's conservative Christian Focus on the Family and advocates for "biblical values" and "godly officials".
Dunn could not explain why a Christian organization would be pushing legislation that supposedly has nothing to do with inserting religion into science class. He referred the question to Fowler.
Fowler, who would not say whether he is a young earth creationist ("I think that's irrelevant," he noted), said he is trying to correct the "dogmatic" presentation of science in the classroom. "This is about open discourse," he said, adding, "Good education requires critical thinking."
Fowler has spoken with members of the Discovery Institute—he would not say specifically whom—and said he drafted the Tennessee bill based on sample legislation the Institute created.
Dunn explains: "We've reversed the roles of the Scopes Trial. All we're saying is let's put all the scientific facts on the table."
Dunn said the bill would not allow the teaching of intelligent design. But in his Chattanoogan op–ed piece Fowler specifically says it would protect a teacher who wanted to teach the concept, which a federal court ruled unconstitutional in Kitzmiller v. Dover.
"The bill is likely to result in significant violations of students' and parents' First Amendment rights," says Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee. "It is not necessary; and it threatens to undermine science education across the state, endangering the educational and employment futures of Tennessee's students as well as the state's own economic and job prospects."
With 60 percent of U.S. public high school biology teachers are already shying away from evolution in the classroom, according to the results of a recent Pennsylvania State University survey, these anti-evolution bills send a warning message to ambivalent teachers to avoid the subject, Rosenau said.
Separation of church and state
While the fight heats up in Tennessee, anti-evolution battles continue in other states.
Next month, Texas's SBOE will begin the four-month review process of "supplemental materials," which will be used in place of costly new science textbooks. The creationist sympathies of several members of a board-appointed volunteer review panel have raised questions about whether the SBOE intends to use these additional publications to eventually open a door to creationism and ID-friendly materials into the classroom.
Meanwhile, in Louisiana a 17-year-old Baton Rouge Magnet High School student has begun a long-shot campaign to get lawmakers to repeal the state's anti-evolution law. Zack Kopplin has lined up support of one senator, who has said she is willing to introduce the legislation. Gene Mills of the Louisiana Family Forum (also affiliated with Focus on the Family) said he welcomes the attempt. "It's healthy to have discussions," Mills says, "but I don't think it's going anywhere."
Forty years after Scopes was found guilty for teaching evolution, he mused about an alternative outcome for his case if it had gone to the Supreme Court: "The Butler Act was an effort on the part of a religious group, the fundamentalists, to impose by law their religious beliefs on the rest of society. Our Founding Fathers, acquainted with the bloody religious wars in Europe, had written into the Constitution the right of religious freedom and had further provided, by means of the doctrine of the separation of church and state, that no religious group should control or unduly influence any arm of secular government. I believe that had we reached the Supreme Court we would have been victorious on this issue."
A Tennessee House subcommittee hearing for the state's "strengths and weaknesses" bill was continued from last week to give expert witnesses on both sides time to prepare. The hearing will resume Wednesday.
oop oop eep eep oop oop eep eep
I worked for 14 years in Newborn ICU. Every mutation I ever saw was bad, not adaptive. It’s kind of a no brainer. Common sense seems to be in very short supply.
More "Settled Science"?
“14 years? please tell me you’re joking. Please.”
No, I’m not joking. I’d be working now if I could get a job, but no one is hiring and I have a 15 year old in college that I’ve been taxi mom to. I loved it. I loved working with babies. I can honestly say I saved a life every day... well, maybe there were one or two slow days, but only a couple. The majority of my patients went home alive, unlike other areas such as oncology. I’m a little puzzled by your response. Can you elaborate?
Ping
I’m awestruck by your stamina to work 14 years in Newborn ICU. As for common sense, I suspect most adaptive mutations don’t result in a stay in the Newborn ICU.
Once ANY religion teaches evolution then it also should be removed from schools as a religious point of view.
Were you working at Hiroshima General? Why were the babies mutants?
Strange that the approaches keep reversing over the years.
When I started my college freshman year in the fall of 1953, our Geology texbook began by showing evolution was in harmony with the order of creation.
Back in 1960 I had a book from a lending library titled: “Enspiration vs Evolution” (copywrite 1923) written by W.B. Riley.
The most I remember about it(I wish I could get a copy of it today) it outlined the conquences of teaching evolution as a fact in our schools and colleges.
Number one: It will tend to encourage communism, and athesism!
Number two: It will encourage lawlessness and anarchy!
I recently read a quote by the reformist Martin Luther it said: “If the Bible is not taught in our public schools they will turn into the gates of hell.”
Benjamin Rush, one of the youngest signers of the “Declaration of Independence” and the Treasurer of our nation, and he was a chemistry professor wrote the first Chemistry Book for our colleges.
Dr. Rush wrote a tract giving his reasons why we must teach the Bible in our public schools. He gives a warning if we ignore the great wisdom and life principles in the Holy Scriptures.
Most of us today have lived long enough to see the tragedies suffered in our schools, colleges and universities.
“Were you working at Hiroshima General? Why were the babies mutants?”
Well, I did have a discussion with my teenager about this thread, and did have to admit that the only potential adaptation might have been the kids with 6 fingers, but socially, well.... Working in the best NICU in the world at the time with the guys that wrote the text book, I saw enough, and nearly every text book case. Now if we’d had kids born with gills or wings.... I’m still trying to figure out how the idea of entropy and evolution can coexist.
So they weren't actually mutating in front of your eyes! Whew!. Opposing thumbs, two eyes, sucking reflex and autonomic breathing seem like pretty good adaptations too, but I'm Protestant.
Religious teachings should not be a part of science classes.
OMG!
Careful...the creationist police will flame you!
Funny how Catholics ( last I heard they were Christians) have no problem accepting evolution with Christianity.
Get ready for the one, only, true interpreters of the Bible to post and tell you why THEIR interpretation of scripture is true...( its in the Bible and the Bible is true and its in the Bible and here is the sentence and here is what it means and the reason its true is these words are in the Bible and I just told you what it means).
Meh. :)
Funny how Catholics ( last I heard they were Christians) have no problem accepting evolution with Christianity.
I have no problem with that either. The order in which plants and animals appeared on earth as shown by science happens to fit the order in which God created them in Genesis 1. To me, the lesson I got from Genesis 1 is "Can you accept that there is indeed a God who could create the universe? If the answer is anything other than 'Yes' then stop reading."
But outside of that, science and religion should remain separate subjects. What's going to happen when every religion wants their creation story taught as science?
Your post is excellant....
when religion gets into defining science it loses its power...which is what you described...FAITH.
I have always found it interesting that some humans are able to “know” the mysterious link between our belief in God and exactly “how “ he did all this...My awe at God and Creation really stops me in my tracks from “knowing” the whole deal with my puny mind..ha.
The evolution of any mammalian species is only possible with heterosexual relationships.
If you believe in either evolution or creation, you have to accept this reality.
Last time I checked, the theory of evolution was still just that - a theory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.