THE SCIENTIFIC ISSUES
Why should evolution be taught in science classes?
Evolution should be taught for the same reason that other factual information should be taught. It is the best, most accurate explanation we have for the variety we see in the living world, resulting from the research and experimentation of thousands of scientists for over a century.
And, it is important. Children may not need to know what time of day George Washington was born, but they need to know he was our first president. In the same way, they may not need to know every detail of cell division, but they need to know about evolution because it is a key to understanding every aspect of the biological sciences, from genetics to animal behavior.
But what about equal time for other scientific viewpoints, like scientific creationism?
Sometimes, scientists really do disagree about the explanation for some natural phenomenon. And sometimes, it is appropriate to present children with different viewpoints, and the evidence for them. This can help children understand how science works, and what kind of evidence is needed to establish a scientific theory. But it canīt always be done because there wouldnīt be enough hours in the school day to teach children about every explanation that was ever given.
In any case, the fact is that "scientific creationism" is not a genuine scientific theory. It is an attempt to use scientific-sounding arguments to uphold a religious belief, the belief that the creation story told in the Bible is literally true. The scientific method starts with a question, like, "Why are some fossil animals so different from the animals around us today?" and finds the answer through observation and experiment. The creationist method starts with an answer, then looks for evidence that seems to fit. Another important difference is that science uses natural explanations of natural events. Scientists study natural processes occurring in the world around them, find out how they work, and apply the principles they learn to new questions. They never use miracles as explanations. "Scientific creationism" depends on miracles; its explanations assume that there have been exceptions to the laws of nature. This means that "scientific creationism" is unscientific by definition!
What about the flaws in the theory of evolution? If someone can show problems with this theory, doesnīt that prove we should pay attention to creationism?
Finding a problem in one theory doesnīt prove that another is correct. Suppose I ask you and your friend what kind of fruit I have in a paper bag. You guess that itīs an apple, and your friend guesses that itīs a cherry. Then I say, "Iīll give you a hint -- thereīs one big seed in the center." Iīve just proved that you were wrong, but that doesnīt make your friend right. It could be a peach or an apricot!
But the "flaws" that creationists claim to find in evolutionary theory simply donīt exist. They are based on a misunderstanding of the theory, or misrepresentation of evidence. This is really a very complicated area, but one example might help. "Scientific" creationists often claim that evolutionary theory is disproved by a lack of transitional fossils -- remains of plants or animals that are intermediate between modern species and the fossils we have found. Some plants and animals donīt fossilize well; sometimes conditions for preserving fossils are poor; sometimes fossils are destroyed; and some fossils will never be found because they are inaccessible -- located under-water or in deserts. But there is enough fossil evidence -- not to mention transitional species living right now! -- to establish a clear pattern. Suppose you saw the ruin of a house after a bombing -- some standing door frames, a partially tumbled-down chimney, and so on. You would not need to see every bit of roof and wall to convince you that it was a house. You might not know what color the house was, just as we donīt know what color a fossil mammoth was. But we know that some species of mammoths were the ancestors of modern elephants as surely as you would know that you were looking at a house and not a football stadium!
THE LEGAL ISSUES
What do the courts say about the teaching of evolution and of scientific creationism?
In 1962, in the important case of Epperson v Arkansas, the Supreme Court ruled that states may not forbid the teaching of evolution. Then, in 1987, in the Edwards v Aguillard decision, the Court ruled that states may not require the teaching of "scientific creationism," because to do so would be to teach a religious doctrine, in violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution. The First Amendment forbids the government to do anything that inhibits or advances religion. According to the law, public schools may teach about religion; for example, a social studies teacher may tell students about the beliefs of the people in a country they are studying. But a teacher may not advocate a religion -- that is, tell students they should adopt particular religious beliefs.
What About the Teacherīs Freedom of Speech?
Outsideof school, the teacher is as free to advocate religious beliefs as any other citizen. In school, these rights are limited by the teacherīs professional responsibilities. Another Supreme Court decision, Palmer v Board of Education says, "There is a compelling state interest in the choice and adherence to a suitable curriculum.... It cannot be left to individual teachers to teach what they please." The science teacherīs responsibility is to teach the best known scientific knowledge. This responsibility is affirmed by a number of teachersī organizations that also work to protect teachersī rights. Policy statements of twenty-one educational organizations may be found in the NCSE book Voices for Evolution.
What about the rights of parents to have their beliefs taught to their children?
Nobody denies the right of parents to teach their beliefs at home, or to have their children taught their beliefs in churches, summer camps, and so on. But the situation in the schools is more complicated. Schools have to teach children from a variety of religious and ethnic backgrounds, and teachers accomplish this by using a curriculum that avoids promoting or denying religious beliefs.
Teachers must meet curriculum requirements designed to assure that children learn what they will need to know. The schools couldnīt function at all if they taught every belief of every parent. Some people believe that Shakespeare didnīt write the plays he is known for, and have various theories about who did write them. Some people believe that the earth is a hollow ball, and others (including some creationists) believe that it is flat. The schools do their best to teach the most accurate information available.
But if a majority, or at least a very large number, of people wanted scientific creationism to be taught, wouldnīt it be more democratic to do that?
The decision we have made in our democracy is to try to give all children the best education possible. We know that sometimes a great number of people have misconceptions. Sadly, large numbers of people donīt know that the earth revolves around the sun, how electricity works, or what causes tides. Is it fair to the children to omit teaching things because a lot of people donīt understand them, or to teach them something that isnīt true, just because a lot of people believe it?
THE MORAL ISSUES
Doesnīt the idea of evolution go against religion?
Not at all. Most religious groups have no problem whatever with the theory of evolution or other scientific findings. NCSEīs book Voices for Evolution contains statements from thirteen major religious organizations, explaining why their faith is not harmed by the idea of evolution. In fact, many feel that a deeper understanding of natureīs wonders actually enriches their faith.
Doesnīt teaching evolution destroy morals by telling children itīs okay to act like animals?
According to the theory of evolution, humans are animals, but why would that imply we should act like them? We share structural and chemical traits with many animals, but humans act like humans. Besides, which animals are we talking about? Every pet owner knows that dogs behave differently from cats. Every rancher knows that cattle and sheep behave differently from each other, and very differently from mountain lions. People also have innate behaviors. What is special about human beings is that we don īt act only on instinct. Each new generation must be taught how to behave morally. The older generations develop codes of manners and morals, and pass laws, enforce them, and teach the children to obey them. Understanding evolution reinforces the message that all people are important parts of the web of life, and each person is unique and valuable.
Isnīt it true that, by teaching "survival of the fittest," evolution is used to justify cruelty?
No. Some people did have this mistaken idea in the late nineteenth century, when a philosophy called "Social Darwinism" resulted from a misguided effort to apply the lessons of biological evolution to society. They taught that colonized nations, or poor people and disadvantaged minorities within one country, must deserve their situations because they were "less fit" than those who were better off.
The fact is that the idea of biological evolution has stood the test of time, but "Social Darwinism" has not. Former colonies are now independent nations, democracy is spreading, and belief in individual equality has grown. This process has actually bee n helped by what we have learned about evolution. We now know that "fitness" means more than just brute strength. For many kinds of animals, and certainly for humans, cooperation and kindness help the survival of individuals and of groups.
HOW CAN I LEARN MORE ABOUT THESE ISSUES?
Contact the National Center for Science Education, Inc. (NCSE). NCSE was founded to work for excellence in science education, and its work includes programs to help people understand the importance of teaching about evolution. NCSE holds workshops for parents and educators, and produces a number of publications on evolution and the evolution/creation controversy. You can write, phone, or email us at:
National Center for Science Education
P.O. Box 9477
Berkeley, CA 94709
ph: 510/601-7203
fax: 510/601-7204
toll-free: 800/290-6006
email: ncse@ncseweb.org
December 7, 2000
