What’s the latest strategy for introducing religion into science class?
Like a phoenix, the Scopes Monkey Trial rises. Over and over again. And in ever more stealth iterations.
Since the 1925 trial, Courts have ruled against William Jennings Bryan’s pro-Bible position again and again. But just as often, states have left the door open for it.
As recently as this month, Diane Douglas, Superintendent of Public Instruction in Arizona, took a turn. This time in the form of removing and modifying references to evolution in the state science standards.
Here’s a sample of her handiwork. The changes are in green.
The original standard establishes a clear cause-effect relationship between diversity and evolution: The unity and diversity of organisms, living and extinct, is the result of evolution.
The new standard totally obfuscates the link: The theory of evolution seeks to make clear the unity and diversity of living and extinct organisms.
The underscored words almost beg for an alternative explanation to evolution, giving teachers an opening to teach creationism and intelligent design as alternate “theories.“
What Douglas and others may not understand is that the new standard embodies an oxymoron. The paradox centers on the meaning of theory. Like many words, theory has one meaning in everyday conversation and a different meaning in science.
In everyday language, a theory is a hunch, an educated guess.
In science, a theory is “a well-substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observations and experimentation.” It is not a casual feeling or gut idea.
If Douglas’s intention were to really advance science education, she would have added a statement about the meaning and role of scientific theory to the standards. Surely that would add clarity and accuracy to the revision.
Would evaluating evolution and other “theories” against a definition be a valuable use of students’ time? The answer isn’t clear. Time is the scarcest of all resources in a classroom.
Would an exploration of evolution in real time be worthwhile? Perhaps.
Teachers need only lead students to learn what happens to malignant cells when they are assaulted by lethal chemicals. Most die. But the stronger, more fit cells survive. They mutate. They adapt. They carry on and continue dividing. It may not be “pretty,” but it’s a fact. And it’s nothing less than natural selection–survival of the fittest–in a petri dish, the central process of evolution.
Let us not take the science out of science education.
I live in Florida, where our Common Core curriculum introduces the definition of a scientific theory in elementary school, and drills it over and over again through middle and high school. Our language arts curriculum, starting in 3rd grade, drills, over and over, the need for “text evidence” to back up a claim. Even if it’s as simple as “I think Joey is sad that his puppy ran away, because on p. 3 he is crying.” I had such high hopes for this curriculum! Just those two things alone could solve our current Fake News crisis. But Betsy DeVos and my own Florida legislator, Richard Corcoran, want to get rid of Common Core. I wonder why? (That’s a rhetorical question, btw.)