AUSTIN, Texas (ABP) — More than two centuries after his birth and nearly 150 years after his groundbreaking On the Origin of Species was published, Charles Darwin is still a controversial character in Texas. And the latest battle over his legacy there could have implications for the entire nation’s public schools.
In a series of votes March 26 and 27, the Texas Board of Education narrowly defeated controversial language for state science standards that would have called for public-school teachers to offer instruction on the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolutionary theory. But they also adopted language in several compromise amendments that, according to some science and civil-liberties groups, could offer a foothold for creationist theories about the origins of life to climb into the state’s classrooms and textbooks.
“I think the big picture was they essentially adopted amendments … that will allow creationists on the board to pressure publishers into putting phony challenges to evolution in their textbooks that are based on almost straight-up creationist arguments,” said Dan Quinn, communications director for the Texas Freedom Network, March 31. Quinn’s group has been leading Texas’ opposition to the slim minority of members on the board who are closely aligned with Religious Right groups.
Both literal “young-Earth” creationism and its close relative, intelligent-design theory, have lost repeated battles in federal courts in recent years, with judges ruling that they are too tied to religious teachings and too removed from scientific consensus to pass constitutional muster. In response, many proponents of religious explanations for the origins of life have shifted tactics to a “teach the controversy” approach to teaching about evolution and other controversial scientific theories in public schools.
Creationism is the approach that asserts God created the Earth in ways literally consistent with the two creation stories found in the first two chapters of Genesis. Intelligent-design theory, meanwhile, does not necessitate belief in literal six-day creationism, but posits that life is too complex to have evolved merely by mutation and natural selection without the aid of some unseen intelligent force guiding the process.
Proponents of creationism and intelligent design in several states have, in recent years, attempted to force science teachers to offer evidence for and against major parts of evolutionary theory, despite the fact that the vast majority of the mainstream scientific community supports it. In fact, most scientific professional societies contend, evolution is not a “theory” as the term is used in non-scientific parlance. Rather, they note, Darwin’s observations have repeatedly been proven accurate, and evolutionary concepts underpin much of modern biology, chemistry and other scientific disciplines.
One of the compromise amendments requires that students learn how to “analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations in all fields of science.” That includes “examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.”
Other amendments to the standards would require students know how to think critically about “sudden appearance, stasis, and the sequential nature of groups in the fossil record,” about theories on how the “complexity of the cell” evolved and about the emergence of primordial life from organic compounds.
Quinn said such doubts about the scientific consensus on evolution are “all straight out of the intelligent-design handbook,” because virtually all scientists except those advocating intelligent design say there is no serious scientific debate about evolution.
Quinn said the language therefore wasn’t compromise, but capitulation. “You’re dealing with people who want to dumb down science; you can’t compromise with that,” he said. “It’s sort of like saying, ‘I know that two plus two equals four; you believe that two plus two equals six.’ I’m not going to compromise and say, ‘Two plus two equals five; that’s just wrong.’”
Groups that support creationism and intelligent design, meanwhile, welcomed the compromise language.
“The new science standards mark a significant victory for scientists and educators in favor of teaching the scientific evidence for and against evolution,” said a statement from the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, the nation’s leading proponent of intelligent design. The group said the scientific community’s Darwinian consensus was its own sort of “dogma” that should not keep students from learning how to evaluate significant aspects of evolution.
“Contrary to the claims of the evolution lobby, absolutely nothing the [Texas Education] Board did promotes ‘creationism’ or religion in the classroom,” said John West, senior fellow at the institute. “Groups that assert otherwise are lying, plain and simple. Like the boy who cried ‘wolf,’ the Darwin only lobby always screams ‘creationism!’ anytime educators or policymakers try to ensure a fair presentation of the scientific evidence both for and against evolution. Let’s be absolutely clear: Under the new standards, students will be expected to analyze and evaluate the scientific evidence for evolution, not religion. Period.”
At least six other states — Alabama, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and South Carolina — have adopted science standards requiring students to learn how to evaluate aspects of evolutionary theory critically.
But Texas’ decision is different, because it is one of the nation’s largest markets for school textbooks. Textbook publishers, therefore, often write their texts to Texas standards.
Quinn said textbook publishers will be faced with a Hobson’s choice — write books to suit standards that a conservative Texas education board will approve the next time textbooks are chosen in 2011, or ignore the huge Texas market altogether.
"Basically, the book they create for us is going to be poison everywhere else,” he said. “It’s a real problem for them; it’s a real problem for Texas kids.”
Don McLeroy (R-College Station), a creationist who serves as the elected board’s chairman, said textbook companies are on notice that “they'll have to get their textbooks approved by us in a few years,” the Dallas Morning News reported.
-30-
Robert Marus is managing editor and Washington bureau chief for Associated Baptist Press.
Related ABP stories:
Scientific organizations, court: ‘intelligent design’ isn’t science (2/9)
Evolution critics added to panel that recommends Texas school standards (10/21/2008)