By KATHERINE CROMER BROCK
The state's standards for teaching science are up for approval this year, and the recent dust-up over the teaching of evolution may be a signal of events to come.
Committees are beginning a review of the science curriculum this month, and while members of the State Board of Education say they don't want major changes, philosophical differences among them have led to concern about whether Texas will become the next flashpoint in the debate over the instruction of evolution.
The state's public school curriculum, called Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, says students must learn "the theory of biological evolution." Section 3A of the biology curriculum states that students must use critical thinking to make informed decisions, including analyzing a theory's "strengths and weaknesses."
"They do not cover the weaknesses of evolution," said Don McLeroy, chairman of the state board, of the state's science textbooks. "They present evolution as an absolute fact."
McLeroy, an outspoken creationist, said he doesn't want changes in the state's biology standards. But some say that doesn't mean that creationism or intelligent design, both held by the U.S. Supreme Court to be religious theories that are barred from the classroom, won't seep into Texas' curriculum.
"This whole state better be watching the vote on this board," member Mary Helen Berlanga said. "I'm very concerned about future votes on textbooks."
The theories
In 1859, Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species ignited the debate about how life on Earth came to be. Here are the prevailing theories:
Evolution: By the 1870s, most biologists had accepted Darwin's theories that natural selection, combined with random genetic mutations, explains how complex organisms can form and survive. All species of plants and animals developed from earlier forms. This theory has been held by the Supreme Court as the acceptable theory to teach in public schools.
Creationism: Creation science states that the literal Biblical account of creation can be verified scientifically, rejecting Darwinian evolution.
Intelligent design: The theory predates Christianity, going back to Plato and Cicero. Aristotle called the designer the "unmoved mover" -- the force that put all around us in motion. The 13th-century Italian priest Thomas Aquinas called it the "argument from design": Life and nature are so intricate that they couldn't have happened randomly. In the past few decades, proponents of intelligent design have formed into a nationwide political movement as they seek to have the theory included in public school science curricula alongside evolution.
The debate
Anti-evolution proposals have come up in more than 20 states and in the debate about the federal No Child Left Behind Act.
Courts on the state and national levels have rebuffed school districts, teachers and parents who want to introduce any theories other than evolution. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, creation science and intelligent design introduce religion into the classroom, violating the Constitution.
No states mention creationism or intelligent design in their standards, said Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education. Instead of pushing the theories into the curriculum, creationists try to "instill fear, uncertainty and doubt about evolution," Branch said.
The sparks
Two recent events in Austin have rekindled the evolution debate in Texas.
Chris Comer, the Texas Education Agency's then-science curriculum director, forwarded an e-mail to co-workers about a lecture in Austin titled "Inside Creationism's Trojan Horse" by an anti-creationism professor who is also on the board of the National Center for Science Education.
Deputy Commissioner Lizzette Reynolds said the e-mail was a firing offense.
On Nov. 5, curriculum director Monica Martinez wrote to Susan Barnes, associate commissioner for standards and programs, outlining "proposed disciplinary action." Martinez recommended firing Comer.
The memo stated that forwarding the e-mail "demonstrates a serious lack of good judgment" and violates a directive that Comer not communicate "with anyone outside the agency in any way that might compromise the integrity of the TEKS development and revision process," referring to the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, the state-mandated curriculum.
Comer submitted a letter of resignation Nov. 7.
Defenders of evolution say the dismissal was an attempt to quash anti-creationism sentiment within the TEA.
On Nov. 16, the state board narrowly rejected a third-grade mathematics textbook that conformed to standards.
Rules governing textbook adoption require the board to accept textbooks by putting them in two lists: those that are accepted and conform to the state's standards and those that are accepted, but do not conform. There is a third option: rejection.
The book was not rigorous enough, said McLeroy, of College Station. It relied heavily on the use of calculators, for example.
Board members in the minority fear that the vote was a trial run by the majority -- if they could reject a conforming math textbook, what might they do during a vote on biology textbooks?
The future
Work groups of teachers and other experts are beginning to analyze the science curriculum this month. The state board isn't scheduled to adopt revisions to the standards until November. Textbook adoption will follow.
Board members say they have no interest in trying to force creationism or intelligent design into the standards. Many say the standards are fine as written.
Board member Gail Lowe of Lampasas said she doesn't believe in interjecting religion into a science class. However, she agrees that there are weaknesses to evolution that should be pointed out in the textbooks.
"They present evolution in the same terms as gravity," she said. "We can be honest that there are some weaknesses and that Darwinian evolution is still controversial in the science community."
Pat Hardy, who represents the Fort Worth area on the state board, said this is a difficult issue to dissect.
"Science is things that have a hypothesis and a proof," she said. "Religion is something that comes from the heart."
Hardy described herself as a devout Christian. She said that she believes that "a religious point of view doesn't have a place in the classroom," but that the textbooks should be clearer on the weaknesses of evolution.
"We should have students thinking, not be telling them what to think," she said.
Staff writer Mark Agee contributed to this report.
Court decisions
Significant cases regarding evolution and creationism in public schools.
1. Epperson v. Arkansas, 1968
The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited teaching evolution. The First Amendment does not allow a state to require that teaching must be tailored to the principles or the prohibitions of any particular religious sect or doctrine.
2. Segraves v. California, 1981
Sacramento Superior Court found that the California State Board of Education's science standards accommodated children's free exercise of religion by providing that class discussion of origins focus on "how" and not "ultimate cause" of origins.
3. McLean v. Arkansas, 1982
A federal court held that an Arkansas statute requiring "balanced treatment" of "creation-science" and "evolution-science" violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The court declared that "creation-science" is not an actual science, and that the theory of evolution does not presuppose either the absence or the presence of a creator.
4. Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987
The U.S. Supreme Court said Louisiana's Creationism Act was unconstitutional. According to the court, the act endorsed religion by allowing evolution instruction only when accompanied by creationism instruction.
5. Webster v. New Lenox School District, 1990
An Illinois court found that a school district could prohibit a teacher from teaching creationism.
6. Peloza v. Capistrano School District, 1994
A California court found that a teacher's First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is not violated by a school district's requirement that evolution be taught in biology class.
7. Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, 1997
A Louisiana district court rejected a policy requiring teachers to read aloud a disclaimer promoting "critical thinking" when teaching evolution. This decision also recognized intelligent design as being the same as creationism.
8. Rodney LeVake v. Independent School District 656, 2000
The case of a high school teacher wanting to teach "evidence both for and against" evolution was rejected by a Minnesota state district court judge. The teacher's desire did not match the district's curriculum.
9. Selman et al. v. Cobb County School District et al., 2005
In Georgia, a federal judge ruled that it violated the First Amendment to put the following warning label on textbooks: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
10. Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover, 2005
A federal judge ordered the Dover, Pa., area school board not to include in the science curriculum a statement that read, "Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's theory and other theories of evolution, including, but not limited to, intelligent design." The judge said it violated the First Amendment.
Source: National Center for Science Education
No comments:
Post a Comment