ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
*****************************************************************************
This is the preequel to Amanda's posting about stickers.
Martin
Outside View: Creation sticker shock
By Eugenia Scott, Glenn Branch and Nicholas Matzke
Outside View Commentators
Published 1/18/2005 1:54 AM
OAKLAND, Calif., Jan. 18 (UPI) -- When biology
students in Cobb County, Ga., open their
textbooks, they find a small white sticker that
says: "This textbook contains material on
evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact,
regarding the origin of living things. This
material should be approached with an open mind,
studied carefully and critically considered."
Next year, students looking at the same
textbooks will find a blank space where the
sticker was. On Jan. 13, U.S. District Court
Judge Clarence Cooper in Atlanta ruled the
disclaimer was unconstitutional and ordered it
removed.
In 2002, Cobb County teachers selected a biology
textbook that contained comprehensive coverage of
evolution in order to comply with new state
science education standards. To no one's
surprise, parents protested. Cobb County has, for
decades, had recurring tussles over the teaching
of evolution, spearheaded by conservative
Christians who make no bones about their
religious motivation. The board of education
tried to placate them by pasting the disclaimer
-- rather like a cigarette warning label -- in
textbooks.
Jeffery Selman, a Cobb County parent, sued the
district because he felt that the disclaimer
promoted creationism. He is right.
The Cobb County "theory not fact" disclaimer
comes from a long line of creationist-inspired
disclaimers and policies. A 1974 Texas textbook
disclaimer proclaimed that "material on evolution
included in the book is clearly presented as
theory rather than verified." In 1996, the
Tennessee Legislature barely defeated a bill
stating, "any teacher or administrator teaching
(the theory of evolution) as fact commits
insubordination ... and shall be dismissed or
suspended."
The most infamous and widely copied disclaimer
is Alabama's 1995 "theory not fact" sticker which
included bullet points of creationist junk
science. Texas textbooks carried disclaimers for
10 years, until the attorney general declared
such stickers were unconstitutional because
school boards pass such disclaimers and policies
to appease religious conservatives and to promote
creationism, rather than to serve an educational
purpose.
Cobb County could have saved itself a lot of
trouble and expense if it had listened to what
the Texas attorney wrote in 1984.
Government-sponsored anti-evolution disclaimers
are unconstitutional and bad science. They
encourage a belief in special creation and
mislead students about the nature of science and
the solid position of evolution among scientific
theories. One hears often in the debate that
"evolution is only a theory" -- meaning that
evolution is an unsubstantiated guess -- but the
National Academy of Sciences defines theory as an
"explanation of some aspect of the natural world
that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and
tested hypotheses."
Think about it: theories incorporate facts, laws
and hypotheses. They are the central unifying
backbones of disciplines. Just as relativity and
quantum mechanics are the backbone of physics,
and plate tectonics is the backbone of geology,
evolution is the backbone of biology. We're glad
evolution is a theory: it makes it much more
important than a fact. But of course, "theory not
fact" disclaimers assume very different
definitions of these terms than those used by
scientists.
Equating evolution with atheism, creationists
believe that students taught evolution may
abandon their faith, or at least find it
weakened. Speaking of the creationism/evolution
controversy, intelligent-design proponent Phillip
Johnson said, "The subject is not just the theory
of evolution, the subject is the reality of God."
Guided by law review articles tracing the
history of creationism as well as testimony from
scientists, Cooper wrote, "By denigrating
evolution, the School Board appears to be
endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative
theory, creationism or variations thereof."
Public school classrooms should be neutral on the
subject of religion; the teaching of creationism
in science class unconstitutionally promotes
religion, violating this neutrality. Cooper made
a good call.
What will happen next? It's easy to predict that
school boards will abandon "theory not fact"
wording, but not disclaimers, which are popular
with school boards: they give the appearance that
elected officials are "doing something about
evolution," thus assuaging concerns of an
important political constituency, and they don't
cost much. Anticipate new disclaimers and other
anti-evolution policies that don't use "theory
not fact" language but which nonetheless will
promote teaching that evolution is bad science.
Policies promoting teaching the evidence against
evolution, or the strengths and weaknesses of
evolution, or as in the Dover, Pa., school
district policy next to be challenged in U.S.
District Court, teaching the "gaps/problems in
evolution" are already in evidence. Except that
scientists don't know of any evidence against the
inference that living things have common ancestry.
Evolution happened. There are unsolved problems
in evolution, to be sure, but they are hardly
weaknesses; every scientific theory has unsolved
problems, and they keep scientists happily busy.
Scientists argue about the details of evolution,
not about whether living things had common
ancestors. To be scientifically literate,
students should learn evolution.
As President Bush's science adviser John H.
Marburger III wrote last March, "Evolution is a
cornerstone of modern biology"; students deserve
to learn it uncompromised by disclaimers or phony
evidence against evolution. We hope that in the
next creationism trial, in Pennsylvania, another
judge will see that evidence against evolution"
policies, like "theory not fact" policies are
also a manifestation of creationism.
--
(Eugenia Scott, Glenn Branch, and Nicholas
Matzke are employed at the National Center for
Science Education, Inc., which defends the
teaching of evolution in public schools.)
--
(United Press International's "Outside View"
commentaries are written by outside contributors
who specialize in a variety of issues. The views
expressed do not necessarily reflect those of
United Press International. In the interests of
creating an open forum, original submissions are
invited.)
Copyright © 2001-2005 United Press International
Copyright 2004. United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
--
Martin Weiss, Ph.D
Vice President, Science
New York Hall of Science
47-01 111 th Street
Corona, New York 11368
718 699 0005 x 356
***********************************************************************
More information about the Informal Science Education Network and the
Association of Science-Technology Centers may be found at http://www.astc.org.
To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]
|