The Scopes Strategy: Creationists Try New Tactics to
Promote Anti-Evolutionary Teaching in Public Schools

     Under the guise of "academic freedom" creationists
     are co-opting some old heroes of the fight to
     teach evolution in the classroom for their anti-
     science campaign

By Lauri Lebo
February 28, 2011
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scopes-creationism-education

Now, more than 80 years after the famous "Scopes Monkey
Trial" in Tennessee, creationism proponents are pushing
for state legislation there that could make it easier
for teachers to bring unscientific ideas back into the
science classroom in public schools. To bolster their
cause, the backers of the new bills are invoking none
other than teacher John Scopes, the trial's pro-
evolution defendant, as an icon of independent
thinking.

"...[T]oday's evolutionary scientists have become the
modern-day equivalents of those who tried to silence
Rhea County schoolteacher John Scopes for teaching
evolution in 1925, by limiting even an objective
discussion of the scientific strengths and weaknesses
of evolutionary theory," David Fowler, head of the
Family Action Council of Tennessee and chief lobbyist
behind Tennessee's proposed anti-evolution bill, wrote
recently in an op-ed in the Chattanoogan.

Scopes had been charged with violating the Butler Act,
which prohibited the teaching of evolution in public
schools. Thus, creationists say, he certainly would
have supported a law that encouraged the teaching of
all sides of "controversial issues"--such as the bill
some are working to pass in Tennessee as part of a
post-intelligent design (ID) campaign to teach the
"strengths and weaknesses" of evolution. If adopted,
this language would send a positive message to teachers
inclined to introduce creationism and ID into the
classroom when discussing biology and the origins of
life.

Trouble in Tennessee

Following the drubbing they received in the
constitutional test case of Tammy Kitzmiller v. Dover
Area School District in Pennsylvania five years ago
(which kept explicit teaching of intelligent design, or
ID, out of public schools) creationists shelved the ID
language--at least publicly--and shifted their approach.

More recently, they have tried to codify versions of
the "strengths and weaknesses" language in states
across the country--an effort that has so far met with
limited success. The closest that creationists came to
getting such terminology on the books was in 2008 in
Louisiana, where an initial "academic freedom" bill
included the phrase, but was replaced with more
watered-down language that nonetheless left the door
open to teaching creationism, some science educators
say.

Texas's State Board of Education (SBOE) tried to
preserve ambiguous language in its science curriculum
in 2009. (The wording had been on the books since the
1990s, having originally been inserted as a compromise
to appease creationists.) But after religious
conservative members of the board were unable to garner
majority support, they dropped it in favor of phrases,
albeit also dubious, that included the statement
students should "analyze and evaluate the sufficiency
of scientific explanations concerning any data of
sudden appearance, stasis and the sequential nature of
groups in the fossil records."

The home state of the Scopes Trial is now on the verge
of adopting the "strengths and weakness" language with
the February 8 introduction of House Bill 368 (pdf). A
week later, its identical counterpart, SB 893, was
introduced in the senate. Whereas similar bills in
Oklahoma and New Mexico have already perished in
committee this year, observers are watching Tennessee's
developments warily.

"The fact that it's moving so quickly is a matter of
concern," says Josh Rosenau, a spokesperson for the
National Center for Science Education, a watchdog
organization that monitors attacks on classroom
teaching of evolution. "There appears to be some
momentum behind it, which suggests it could pass."

Strengths and weaknesses

As with other anti-evolution bills, the Tennessee
legislation does not actually mandate the inclusion of
creationist or ID teachings. Rather, it says that
educators may not be prohibited from "helping students
understand, analyze, critique and review in an
objective manner the scientific strengths and
scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories
covered in the course being taught."

As in the Louisiana law, those theories can include
"biological evolution, the chemical origins of life,
global warming and human cloning." The bill goes on to
say that this only applies to scientific information,
and is not "to be construed to promote any religious or
nonreligious doctrine."

On the surface, the language looks like something that
all scientists would gladly embrace: Promote critical
thinking? Certainly! But opponents of the legislation
say that the bills' backers intent is instead designed
to undercut the teaching of evolution and open doors to
creationism and intelligent design.

As with other anti-evolution bills, Tennessee's seems
to be based on sample legislation written and promoted
by the pro-ID Discovery Institute.

Sponsor Rep. Bill Dunn (R-Knoxville) said Fowler
submitted the legislation to him in early February. The
latter's organization is associated with James Dobson's
conservative Christian Focus on the Family and
advocates for "biblical values" and "godly officials".

Dunn could not explain why a Christian organization
would be pushing legislation that supposedly has
nothing to do with inserting religion into science
class. He referred the question to Fowler.

Fowler, who would not say whether he is a young earth
creationist ("I think that's irrelevant," he noted),
said he is trying to correct the "dogmatic"
presentation of science in the classroom. "This is
about open discourse," he said, adding, "Good education
requires critical thinking."

Fowler has spoken with members of the Discovery
Institute--he would not say specifically whom--and said
he drafted the Tennessee bill based on sample
legislation the Institute created.

Dunn explains: "We've reversed the roles of the Scopes
Trial. All we're saying is let's put all the scientific
facts on the table."

Dunn said the bill would not allow the teaching of
intelligent design. But in his Chattanoogan op-ed piece
Fowler specifically says it would protect a teacher who
wanted to teach the concept, which a federal court
ruled unconstitutional in Kitzmiller v. Dover.

"The bill is likely to result in significant violations
of students' and parents' First Amendment rights," says
Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the American Civil
Liberties Union of Tennessee. "It is not necessary; and
it threatens to undermine science education across the
state, endangering the educational and employment
futures of Tennessee's students as well as the state's
own economic and job prospects."

With 60 percent of U.S. public high school biology
teachers are already shying away from evolution in the
classroom, according to the results of a recent
Pennsylvania State University survey, these anti-
evolution bills send a warning message to ambivalent
teachers to avoid the subject, Rosenau said.

Separation of church and state

While the fight heats up in Tennessee, anti-evolution
battles continue in other states.

Next month, Texas's SBOE will begin the four-month
review process of "supplemental materials," which will
be used in place of costly new science textbooks. The
creationist sympathies of several members of a board-
appointed volunteer review panel have raised questions
about whether the SBOE intends to use these additional
publications to eventually open a door to creationism
and ID-friendly materials into the classroom.

Meanwhile, in Louisiana a 17-year-old Baton Rouge
Magnet High School student has begun a long-shot
campaign to get lawmakers to repeal the state's anti-
evolution law. Zack Kopplin has lined up support of one
senator, who has said she is willing to introduce the
legislation. Gene Mills of the Louisiana Family Forum
(also affiliated with Focus on the Family) said he
welcomes the attempt. "It's healthy to have
discussions," Mills says, "but I don't think it's going
anywhere."

Forty years after Scopes was found guilty for teaching
evolution, he mused about an alternative outcome for
his case if it had gone to the Supreme Court: "The
Butler Act was an effort on the part of a religious
group, the fundamentalists, to impose by law their
religious beliefs on the rest of society. Our Founding
Fathers, acquainted with the bloody religious wars in
Europe, had written into the Constitution the right of
religious freedom and had further provided, by means of
the doctrine of the separation of church and state,
that no religious group should control or unduly
influence any arm of secular government. I believe that
had we reached the Supreme Court we would have been
victorious on this issue."

A Tennessee House subcommittee hearing for the state's
"strengths and weaknesses" bill was continued from last
week to give expert witnesses on both sides time to
prepare. The hearing will resume Wednesday.

___________________________________________

Portside aims to provide material of interest to people
on the left that will help them to interpret the world
and to change it.

Submit via email: [log in to unmask]

Submit via the Web: http://portside.org/submittous3

Frequently asked questions: http://portside.org/faq

Sub/Unsub: http://portside.org/subscribe-and-unsubscribe

Search Portside archives: http://portside.org/archive

Contribute to Portside: https://portside.org/donate