April 4, 2011
Five Reasons Anti-Evolution Measures are a Bad Idea
Biology teacher John Scopes went on trial for teaching evolution in 1925 (via Wikimedia commons)
In 1925, John Scopes, a high school biology teacher, was put on trial in Tennessee for having the audacity to teach evolution to his students. In the 21st century, teachers don’t have to worry about being arrested for teaching this fundamental topic in science, and the Supreme Court declared teaching creationism unconstitutional in 1987, but that hasn’t stopped state legislators around the country from trying to enact laws that encourage the teaching of alternative theories or protect teachers who do so. The latest attempt, in Tennessee, looks like it might actually become law. But here are five reasons why it shouldn’t:
1 ) Evolution is the basis for all biology. Without it, much of biology and modern medicine just doesn’t make sense. There’s general agreement that good science education is needed to produce a populace capable of handling our increasingly technological future. Evolution has to be part of that, but sadly, it rarely is. A recent poll of high school biology teachers found that only 28 percent consistently teach evolution.
2 ) Teaching unscientific “alternatives” only confuses students. “There is virtually no scientific controversy among the overwhelming majority of researchers on the core facts of…evolution,” Alan Leshner, executive publisher of Science, wrote recently to two Tennessee legislators. “Asserting that there are significant scientific controversies about the overall nature of [this concept] when there are none will only confuse students, not enlighten them.”
3 ) Science-based industries might conclude the state is anti-science. Florida is considering its own law to require “critical analysis” of evolution, which could open the door to unscientific theories being presented in the classroom. In response to the measure, the Florida Academy of Sciences issued a statement noting that the measure would “undermine the reputation of our state and adversely affect our economic future as we try to attract new high tech and biomedical jobs to Florida.”
4 ) Anti-evolution theories aren’t science and don’t belong in a science classroom. Whether you call it creationism, creation science or intelligent design, it isn’t science and shouldn’t be taught alongside scientific theories. I could see the story of creation being taught in a history class, while studying the creation mythologies of various world cultures, but anything else is promoting religion and is unconstitutional in a public school.
5 ) If it goes to court, the anti-evolution side will lose, potentially costing a school district or state a lot of money. Case in point: Dover, Pennsylvania. The Dover Area School District was sued by parents after it mandated the teaching of intelligent design. The district lost, spectacularly (pdf), and paid more than $1 million in legal fees. Defending the teaching of anti-evolution theories now could potentially cost millions more.
Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.
8 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Great blog post, and I’m in agreement with all of your points.
I did want to point out though, that the photo you use to illustrate your post is actually in the Smithsonian Institution Archives’ collections (also posted to the Wikimedia Commons). If you and your readers want to check out more photos of the famous trial from the Archives’ collections, check out our Smithsonian Flickr Commons set here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/smithsonian/sets/72157607580371997
Cheers,
Catherine Shteynberg
Smithsonian Institution Archives
Not sure how/when science and religion became enemies, but I don’t see the two as being exclusive at all. In fact, God would have had a system (science) to create the world. Science needs an ignition (God) for the creation of something where there once was nothing. Maybe a magical God doesn’t sound scientific, but neither does nothingness suddenly blowing up and creating somethingness.
I teach this topic to my science writing students. We examine and “argue” rhetorically –both poits of view using scientific articles of substance. The consensus? Darwinism is a paradigm shift. –af
I think the Evolutionists are missing a trick. They’re lettin the anti-science groups set the agenda. The Creationists and Alternate Theoryists say, in essence, “Look at all these things wrong with Evolution, [insert long list]. Instead let’s believe in Creationism.”
I have yet to see Creationism subjected to the same scrutiny: “Look at all these things wrong with Creationism [insert long list, such as - doesn't explain the world without a lot of handwavium, doesn't hold up to repeated experiment, etc].”
I think creationism is more of a philosophy than anything else. The fact that evolution occurs is indisputable; it happens in EVERYTHING, not just biological structures. The cause of that evolution might be disputable (random versus preordained), but evolution itself is not. So I agree. Teach the God stuff in philosophy and teach about the evolutionary process in biology.
In response to Budd, who says: “Maybe a magical God doesn’t sound scientific, but neither does nothingness suddenly blowing up and creating somethingness.”
Isn’t it just as strange that an allmighty God appeared from nothingness? Perhaps the creation of God is not discussable?
[...] This is just one more reason why everyone needs a solid base in science, and one more reason to worry when reading stories about how science education is being neglected or actively undermined. [...]
[...] teachers presenting intelligent design and creationism alongside evolutionary theory in classrooms. Smithsonian.com give five pretty good reasons why anti-evolution measures are a bad idea. Here’s a [...]