|
The Darwin Dilemma
Joanna Friedman
I went to school in a town where people looked down on teaching evolution. I can’t say that I understand precisely why, though. What are the anti-evolutionists so afraid of? Do they think that simply hearing about a theory will condemn a youth to eternal damnation? I can understand not believing in something, but what I can’t comprehend is disallowing a widely held scientific theory from being taught in public schools. And yet, that’s exactly what is happening in this country.
Many are unaware of the extent of the problem. Individuals living in Blue-state America may incorrectly assume that as long as evolution is not literally “banned” it must be a part of the curriculum. However, to draw such a conclusion is premature. Evolution may be part of the official curriculum but oftentimes, teachers gloss over the subject, or forgo it altogether. They know that if they bring it up, they are likely to face hostility from the community. While large proportions of the population, especially in the South and Midwest, reject the theory of evolution, I fail to see the logic of nonacceptance as a justification for omission.
As a student in a public school, I was taught that evolution simply denoted “change over time.” My teacher stressed that it did not mean we had evolved from a lower life form. Even though I was young, I knew that evolution was a hot potato so I was content that at least an attempt was made to incorporate the concept into our studies. It was not until later that I realized such a characterization of evolution is misleading and that we had, in fact, learned next to nothing. We spent weeks on eukaryotic cells, but the muttering of a single phrase provided us sufficient exposure to what is arguably one of the most important scientific theories.
Teaching evolution this way may very well be the easiest escape for educators who wish to avoid such a politicized subject. Gerald Wheeler, a physicist who heads the National Science Teachers Association, notes that teachers “fly under the radar" of fundamentalists by depicting evolution as controversial, which scientifically it is not, and by making it a special point to repeatedly note that many people do not accept the idea. The problem with stressing a major postulate’s nonacceptance is that doing so automatically establishes a bias in the impressionable mind of the student. It is, in essence, condemning the theory of evolution to failure before people even have a chance to learn about it. I seriously doubt that the teachers who incorporate creationism alongside evolution preface the biblical account with such strong caveats.
Another common tactic used to downplay evolution’s significance is to relegate it to the status of “religion.” Individuals may claim that to believe in evolution is to have faith just like a religious person has faith in the Bible. Such an assertion ignores the concrete evidence scientists have accumulated from the fossil record. It seems as though such a strategy should be self-defeating, because after all, it also emphasizes the unscientific nature of creationism. Yet, it successfully manages to convince students that people who believe in evolution have simply misdirected their “faith.” They fail to recognize that evolution is not a religion. It is a theory endorsed by adherents of many different religions who believe in it not because of faith, but because of a substantial body of supporting evidence.
The reluctance to accept evolution speaks volumes about our nation. A National Science Foundation survey indicates that roughly half of the American population does not accept evolution. It is staggering to think that 1 in 2 Americans opposes a basic tenet of scientific understanding. What is still more shocking is how the US compares to other industrialized nations on this particular issue. In Japan, over 90 percent of the population accepts the theory. Even in Poland, a socially conservative and predominantly Catholic country, a full three quarters of the populace accepts evolution as fact. This seems like a contradiction in terms but many readers may be surprised to learn that two popes, Pius XII and John Paul II, endorsed the idea that evolution and religion can coexist. I guess some of the Christian conservatives in this country didn’t get the memo.
It is difficult to know what the exact state of evolution in school curricula is given that new bills are introduced every year and new standards are adopted. Suffice it to say, many state standards discourage the teaching of evolution. Currently, five states – Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi and Oklahoma – make no reference to evolution in their school curricula according to the National Center for Science Education. Some states’ legislation includes disclaimers that evolution is “theory not fact” or that “human life was created by one God of the universe.” Some anti-evolutionists claim to want a balance between teaching evolution and creationism in schools. Ironically, in order for equal treatment to occur, creationism would have to confront the massive onslaught of attacks that evolution faces every year. But, I only know of one state that barred creationism – New Mexico. The attacks against evolution are not unique to only certain parts of the country. Though the controversy most often arises in the South and Midwest, anti-evolution legislation has also been introduced in states such as Washington and New Hampshire.
So what will be the next “evolution” of evolution in our public schools? The future is unclear for the “e-word.” States are likely to continue to effectively ban the theory by deleting references to it or replacing evolution with various euphemisms like “change over time.” However, a state does not necessarily have to take legislative action for the anti-evolutionists to win. I grew up in Texas, where the science curriculum does include evolution. Nonetheless, my teacher chose not to teach it, a decision many educators make that is often consequence-free. The lack of accountability will persist so long as evolution is considered a mere buzzword by some and a grave threat by others. Given that the dilemma is far from being resolved, it seems evolution will remain another issue over which our country is starkly divided.
Joanna Friedman is Whig Party Speaker and a columnist for The Soapbox.
|
