Alternative Theories to Darwin Aren't All About Religion Published, Lincoln Journal Star June 25, 2002 Thomas Henry Huxley, a champion of evolutionary theory in the decades following the publication of "Origin of Species," once said, "The great tragedy of science is the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." Ironically, in recent years Darwinian evolution has been the theory to suffer as a result of the scientific facts that call it into question. The Nebraska State Board of Education recently voted not to include language clarifying that teachers are allowed to teach all the scientific facts about the theories of origin. Many concerned citizens remain hopeful that, at the very least, the limits of the current policy will be clearly defined for Nebraska's teachers. Contrary to the misinformation upon which some have based their opinions, the effort to persuade the board to clarify science standards was not led by zealots seeking to mandate religion be taught in the classroom. In fact, neither the May 9 public hearing nor the June 7 board meeting featured proponents who would mandate the teaching of any particular alternative theory. Rather, the issue before the board was whether or not Nebraska's science standards allow teachers to teach all scientific facts about origins. This includes scientific evidence that may contradict or highlight the open questions of the Darwinian theory of evolution (ex: the Cambrian explosion, when the basic blueprints for animal life appeared suddenly in the fossil record; the absence of transitional forms from species to species in the fossil record; or how life came from non-life). Some assert that "all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution" as does "virtually every reputable scientist in the world." However, more than 100 prominent scientists signed on to a statement stating they are "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." They continue: "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Those signing this declaration include Henry F. Schaefer, Nobel nominee and director of Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia; Fred Sigworth, professor of cellular and molecular physiology at Yale; Princeton's Robert Kaita; M.I.T.'s Theodore Liss; and Robert Newman, astrophysicist at Cornell University. Almost a dozen Nebraska scientists also subscribe to this statement. Allowing what may be divergent scientific facts to be taught will not only give students a better science education, it will equip them to learn to think critically about the world in which they live. Clearly, this is not a controversial issue. Both the board and Education Commissioner Doug Christensen agree that teachers ought to have the freedom to present a variety of scientific arguments in their classrooms. In fact, the Nebraska Department of Education released a statement alleging the current standards already allow for this: "The Nebraska science standards now allow local teachers the flexibility they need to discuss evolution theory, including data that substantiates it and counter arguments." A legal review by Family First determined that these standards were, in fact, not clear. Presently, most school textbooks don't discuss counter arguments nor the open questions in evolutionary theory. As such, many teachers, out of fear of reprisal, are unsure if they are able to present this material in their curriculum. Controversy over the proposed clarifications surfaced when opponents presupposed the moderate revisions were an attempt to introduce creationism to the classroom -- or were somehow an argument for a specific theory. During the board meeting the only mention of religion, creation, theology or even intelligent design came from opponents to the changes. Opponents warned intelligent design was "creation in a tuxedo." This is patently false. Even so, the merits of intelligent design are irrelevant as no proposal mentioning it, or any other specific theory, was made. A statewide petition effort demonstrated widespread support for the proposed changes. Language favored by proponents of the science standards revision comes from the national quality scientific education directives: Investigate and distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Investigate and understand the full range of scientific views on biological evolution that exist. Investigate and understand why some topics, such as biological evolution, may generate controversy. Congress passed the proposed language overwhelmingly in a federal education bill earlier this year. Proponents of the change argued Nebraska's standards ought to complement the national directives. Many who testified to oppose changes clearly did not understand the intent of the petition, or were purposefully playing the politics of fear by twisting the issue into something it was not. The attempt to pass clarifications wasn't a backdoor move to introduce religion to the classroom. It wasn't an attempt to force a foot in the door for creationism. And it wasn't a veiled attempt to mandate a particular theory, like intelligent design. It was simply an attempt to allow teachers the freedom to teach students that a controversy exists surrounding origins -- to allow the teaching of the "ugly facts" that evolutionary theory has its shortcomings and unanswered questions. ____________ Jessica Moenning is communications director for Family First, a nonprofit research and educational organization dedicated to strengthening Nebraska families.

Family First Current Issues