Chapter 5

HISTORICAL DISPUTES OVER THE TEACHING OF

EVOLUTION

Should evolution be taught as a theory?

The famous John Scopes vs. Tennessee trial (1925) was the first significant disagreement over the teaching of evolution in public schools of the United States. It was called the “trial of the century” by some. John Scopes was convicted of teaching evolution, and fined $100, a sum to which sympathetic townspeople contributed. So much has been written about this trial than no more need be said now.

I have no recollection of evolution being mentioned in California schools I attended in the 1940’s. Since then, however, an increasing tide of controversy has erupted among science teachers, boards of education, legislators and the courts.

A part of this controversy is whether evolution should be taught as a scientific theory, with which competing theories might also be taught, or a fact for which no competing scientific theories exist.

Suppose someone uses the phrase “the fact of evolution”. In science, it should always be made clear that the word “fact” refers to an objectively verifiable observation, and not to absolute certainty. “Evolution” should also be defined as one of the evolution definitions A, B, or C given in chapter 2.

Few would dispute that limited common descent (microevolution and some macroevolution) has occurred. But more than just a few biologists do have problems with “universal common descent”. The rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record is one of those problems. Some would, (seemingly by faith) reply that some mechanism must exist for the “rapid” changes seen in the fossil record. It’s just that we don’t know what that mechanism is. Stephen J. Gould gave it the name: “punctuated evolution”. (www.wikipedia.org/wiki/evolution_as_theory_and_fact) Some hypothesize that a new species results from many small increments, while others believe the mechanism is still unknown. Thus, a “multiple separate origins” view arose in the 1970’s, as macroevolutionary mechanisms were considered inadequate to explain the existence of all life. (Doolittle, 1999, pp. 2124-2128, & Gilbert et. al., 1996, p. 361)

If the term “theory of evolution” is used, it should be associated with a definition of evolution that includes current scientific proposals for mechanisms by which more difficult aspects of evolution could have occurred. Examples that are more difficult to explain include the origin of the first living cell, the origin of the first multicellular organism (late Precambrian), the origin of the first sexually reproducing organism, and the relatively rapid appearance of new forms during the Cambrian period. Even though it lasted more than 50 million years, the relatively abrupt appearance of so many types of complex animals in that fossil record has been given the name “Cambrian explosion of life” (Barbieri M, in www.lucy.uk.ac.uk/courses/SE302) But the invention of a term does little to satisfy those who want a mechanism for rapid change.

In short, a scientific theory refers to statements that can explain observations and make testable predictions. An attempt to explain how the first living cell came into existence (from inorganic matter) is particularly difficult. This is because inorganic molecules assemble themselves using internal factors, but the assembly of DNA and protein molecules require instructions from outside the molecules themselves.

In science, a hypothesis may also be called a theory, which could become a “scientific law” if it becomes empirically well supported. For instance, the Hardy-Weinberg law can be cited in certain definitions of evolution, regardless of whether or not evolution is called a theory. Laws generally describe regularities in repeatable observations, whereas a theory offers a model for causal processes most likely responsible for the observed regularities.

Are there competing scientific theories within evolution. Certainly. One of them involves the difference between “universal common descent” and “multiple separate origins”. Did the first form of life originate only once? Was Neanderthal man part of the lineage of modern homo sapiens? Did the first homo sapiens originate in Africa or somewhere else? There are many theories within evolution that deal with issues that have not been resolved by those whose scientific profession is to study the origin and appearance of life forms on earth.

At the federal level, a (year?) Senate bill (SB6058) argued that since no one was present when life began on earth, any classroom statement about the origin of life should be considered theory, not a fact.

Should evolution be taught as “the theory of evolution”? Probably not if you define evolution to include all possible mechanisms or processes that could have been involved in scientific explanations for the existence of life on earth. If you define it that way, you exclude all other possible scientific theories. What about the origin of the first living organism ever to exist on earth? That was a singular event that seems to have occurred only once in the distant past, and we know virtually nothing about how it happened. If no scientific evidence is ever found for how it occurred, how could one then be sure that a scientific explanation for it even exists. A similar situation seems to exist for the “big bang”. It may be that no scientific explanation will ever be found for why the big bang happened.

There are those who emphatically state that evolution is a fact, not a theory. That depends very much upon how they define both “evolution” and “fact”. First, their definition of evolution should be one that involves no significant philosophical issue (evolution A, B or C). Secondly, their definition of “fact” should either be something said to be true or supposed to have happened, or something believed to have happened by observation of available evidence (e. g. the fossil record). If those conditions are met, then their statement is allowable. However, if their definition of evolution allows the involvement of a philosophical (non-scientifically testable) issue, or if their definition of “fact” refers to one or more events that happened with absolute certainty, then their statement is in serious trouble. The conclusions of science are always tentative to some degree. It is always possible that a scientific instrument produces false data because some assumption about how that instrument functions happens to be false. Or, more generally, what the observer thinks he is observing is not what the observer is actually observing. Future modification of a scientific conclusion is always possible. Also, evidence regarding historical events is always incomplete, especially if the event happened only once.

How can evolution be taught without inferring philosophical implications?

In 2009, Alabama House Bill 300 would have protected discussion of any view justified by empirical science and observation of the natural world, even though that view might have metaphysical or religious implications. It would have allowed critiques of prevailing scientific theories. However, the bill died in committee before a summer recess. (www.ncse.com/news/2009/05/Alabama) (In general, such bills fail to pass and become law. )

In a science classroom, a discussion of what I have called evolution A, B, or C should not be allowed to “leak over” into philosophical considerations (evolution D, or E -- evolutionism). As soon as that happens it is no longer a science classroom.

If evolution is defined in such a way that it contains any metaphysical consideration, then it becomes disqualified as a scientific theory. “Metaphysical” means “beyond physics”. (It is a term originally used by Aristotle.) Philosophers now use “metaphysics” when they wish to refer to the nature of reality or “being”. Metaphysical knowledge is knowledge that cannot be obtained using the scientific method. Questions about what truth itself is are metaphysical questions. But a necessary condition for true knowledge is that the “knowing” individual must believe it to be true, and believe that it corresponds to true reality, even though he may lack complete certainty about it. But if we define true knowledge this way, it should not be confused with “absolute truth”. I have heard academicians say that there is no absolute truth except the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth.

If evolution is defined to include all possible mechanisms or processes for which scientific evidence can, at least in principle, be obtained, then any competing theory which is not scientifically testable (or falsifiable) is excluded from the science classroom. This is a very critical issue. (Use “Bunny” Jaskott quote here, & comment)

Is there room for “creation science” or “intelligent design” in a biology classroom?

Those who have sought to include “creation science” or, more recently “intelligent design” into K-12 biology curricula have all failed in the courts since the Scopes vs. Tennessee trial of 1925.

On November 13, 1969, the California State Board of Education met to discuss a recently submitted version of the Science Framework for California Public Schools. A small section of Appendix A focused upon interactions of biological organisms and their environment. This section concluded with the sentence: “Evolution results from mutations and genetic recombinations in the organism which, through natural selection, have produced a more efficient relation with the changing environment than less successful ancestors.” At that meeting, a university professor and systems technology consultant by the name of Dr. Vernon L. Grose proposed that Appendix A be changed. He then presented the Board with a written substitute version. After some discussion the Board voted to include two paragraphs from Dr. Grose’s substitute version into Appendix A. Those two paragraphs read:

“All scientific evidence to date concerning the origin of life implies at least a dualism or the necessity to use several theories to fully explain relationships between established data points. This dualism is not unique to this field of study but is also appropriate in other scientific disciplines such as the physics of light.

While the Bible and other philosophic treatises also mention creation, science has independently postulated the various theories of creation. Therefore, creation in scientific terms is not a religious or philosophic belief. Also note that creation and evolutionary theories are not necessarily mutual exclusives. Some of the scientific data (e. g., the regular absence of transitional forms) may be best explained by a creation theory while other data (e. g., transmutation of species) substantiate a process of evolution.” (Vernon L. Grose, “Science but not Scientists” Authorhouse, Bloomington, Indiana, 2006, pp. 607-608)

After several years of emotionally charged reaction from scientists and other concerned citizens, Dr. Grose was appointed to the Science Committee of the State Curriculum Commission in April of 1972. Later that year he was assigned the task of reviewing science textbooks in order to suggest any revisions necessary to align them with the science framework in effect at that time.

In 1987, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Louisiana vs. Aguillard, struck down a Louisiana act that required the “theory of creation science” also be taught whenever the theory of evolution is taught. (This decision followed a 1990 appellate court ruling (Webster vs. the New Lenox School District) that creation science is religious advocacy. (www.talkorigins.org/faqs/Edwardsvs.aguillard)

In a 1992 case (McLean vs. the Arkansas State Board of Education) the court also ruled that creation science is not science, at the same time affirming that the theory of evolution does not presuppose either the presence or the absence of a creator.

The word “creation” as it is used in “creation science” has a metaphysical component –the action of a supernatural creative agency. However, when the word “creation” is used in particle physics (e.g. “particle pair creation”), there is no metaphysical component because the process can be investigated and explained using the scientific method.

After attempts to include “creation science” into the science classroom failed, attempts were made to include “intelligent design” into the curriculum whenever the theory of evolution was taught. Courts in both Louisiana (1999) and Pennsylvania (2004) ruled against any “critical thinking disclaimer” that mentioned intelligent design. (www.wgal.com/news5283559)

In 2004, Missouri House Bill 911 argued that both biological evolution and biological intelligent design should be taught and given equal treatment. In 2006, Michigan House Bill 5251 would provide a legal basis for teaching intelligent design. However, to me, it would seem very difficult to separate “design” from “designer”. That is why the courts have always ruled that intelligent design implies a supernatural designer –making it inseparable from a religious or metaphysical concept.

Intelligent design theorists (such as William Dembski) have worked very hard to make the evidence for design truly scientific, and to remove from it any metaphysical component.

What about teachers who teach arguments both for and against the theory of evolution?

In 1981, a California court ruled that any speculative statement about origins must not be presented dogmatically to students. In 2000, the Texas State Board of Education dropped its 20 year old requirement that teachers teach both the strengths and weaknesses of the theory originated by Darwin.

In Minnesota (year?) a court ruled that a teacher does not have the right to teach evidence both for and against the theory of evolution. However, in (year?) a West Virginia, court ruled that a teacher does have the right to criticize evolutionism. But in 1994, a Federal Court of Appeals rejected the argument of John Peloza, a Capistrano, California high school teacher, that he had been forced to teach evolutionism, which is a philosophical belief system.

In 2002, the Ohio State Board of Education required students to learn how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of Darwin’s theory. Their decision was reversed in 2006. (www.thefreelibrary.com/Ohio+Education a0143580525+Board)

In 2006, the Lancaster School District in California voted to allow teachers to present scientific criticism of Darwinian Evolution.(ref.)

In a February 2008 hearing in Orlando, Florida (following adoption by the Florida Board of Education requiring teaching the “scientific theory of evolution” instead of a more tolerant “change over time” treatment) the ACLU argued against any teacher who refused to teach evolution as fact. It also disallowed any teaching that was critical of evolution. (www.blog.wired.com/2008/02 evolution wins)