Monkey Business
By: Eugenie C. Scott
From: The Sciences, January/February 1996
J. Geffen
5
10
15
20
25
30
1.
Friendly, Nevada, is an unfriendly town in which to teach evolution. So reports
a teacher who says he faces disciplinary action because his lessons mention Darwin.
Paradise, California, may be a paradise for conservative Christians who want their
children’s science education to include an account of the origin of life based on the
book of Genesis. At a new charter school (a locally managed school with relaxed
curricular requirements) a sympathetic board of directors has announced that it plans
to let the creationist parents have their way. Similar schools in Orange, California, and
Berlin, Michigan, may soon follow suit.
2.
Moon, Pennsylvania, was the site of some out-of-this-world science teaching in
March 1994. Parents sued the district after a school-district administrator spent a day
telling students that the dinosaurs died out in Noah’s Flood; that the diversity of
human languages was divine punishment inflicted on the builders of the Tower of
Babel; and that creation “science” has shown that the earth is only a few thousand
years old, on the basis of the fall of, yes, moon dust. The district settled the lawsuit,
promising not to advocate creationism in science classes again.
3.
One hundred fourteen years after the death of Darwin, seventy-one years after
the Scopes trial and nine years after the Supreme Court struck down laws requiring
equal time for creation and evolution, the struggle over evolution in the schools is
alive and well. As executive director of the National Center for Science Education, I
deal with it daily, keeping an eye out for newly kindled brushfires of controversy and
giving information and advice to people who want to ensure that unscientific
“science” stays out of the public school. Some days it seems the telephone rings
almost nonstop with reports and complaints from around the country: a state
committee poised to slap antievolutionary warning labels on biology textbooks; a
school board abuzz with a new “scientific” theory called intelligent design; teachers
bracing for the inevitable barrage of leaflets when the Institute for Creation Research
sends one of its popular “Back to Genesis” roadshows to town.
4.
The legal setbacks of the 1980s left their mark on the antievolution movement.
Now, instead of lobbying for state laws to put creation “science” in the classroom,
advocates have returned to the grass roots. By putting pressure on local school boards
and teachers, they try to make evolution too hot to handle, or at least to sweep it into
the educational background. The low-profile approach has paid off in a series of local
victories – small, piecemeal and sometimes short-term, but still troubling to anyone
Monkey Business / 2
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
who cares about science education in America. And there are signs that the movement
is again starting to flex its muscles at the state level as well.
5.
What makes well-meaning people fight so hard to keep children from learning a
basic scientific principle? From the beginning of the American antievolution
movement, the driving force has been the same: a struggle for souls. Students who
learn evolution, the creationists reason, will come to doubt the existence of God.
Without the moral rudder that religion provides, they will become bad people doing
bad things. Evolution is thus evil and a cause of evil. As Henry M. Morris, the most
influential twentieth-century creationist, wrote in 1963, “evolution is at the foundation
of communism, Fascism, Freudianism, social Darwinism, behaviorism, Kinseyism,
materialism, atheism and, in the religious world, modernism and Neo-orthodoxy.”
6.
In the early 1920s creationists succeeded in outlawing the teaching of evolution
in three American states. In Tennessee in 1925, John T. Scopes was convicted of the
crime of teaching evolution. The Scopes trial was widely considered a Pyrrhic victory
for antievolution campaigners, but the ensuing controversy largely kept evolution out
of school textbooks for another thirty years. Only after the Sputnik scare of 1957 did
scientists begin writing textbooks that presented evolution as the organizing principle
of biology.
7.
Antievolutionists were appalled. Adding to their woes, in 1968 the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled, in Epperson v. Arkansas, that it was illegal for states to ban the
teaching of evolution. Such bans, Justice Abe Fortas wrote, single out evolution from
the curriculum “for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a particular
religious doctrine.” Thus they violate the establishment clause of the First
Amendment to the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting the
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
8.
The ruling gave antievolutionists a new focus: if they could reframe the biblical
account of creation as a scientific theory, the establishment clause would no longer
apply. Creationism could be taught in science classes, blunting the evil effects of
evolution. In the 1970s, laws requiring equal time for creation “science” in public
schools were proposed in at least twenty-two states and were passed in two, Arkansas
and Louisiana. Both laws soon sparked lawsuits. The Arkansas case, McLean v.
Arkansas Board of Education, hinged on the law’s point-by-point definition of
creation “science”:
Creation-science includes the scientific evidences [sic] and related
inferences that indicate: (1) Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and
life from nothing; (2) The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection
in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism;
(3) Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants
and animals; (4) Separate ancestry for man and apes; (5) Explanation of
the earth’s geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a
Monkey Business / 3
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
worldwide flood; and (6) a relatively recent inception of the earth and
living kinds.
9.
The obvious similarities to Genesis proved to be the law’s downfall. In January
1982 the federal district court judge William R. Overton ruled that creation “science”
was religion, not science. “A scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to
revision or abandonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the
theory,” he wrote. “A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist and never
subject to revision is not a scientific theory.” The state did not appeal his decision.
10. The Louisiana case, Edwards v. Aguillard, went all the way to the Supreme
Court. In 1987 the court reaffirmed that creationism is inherently a religious concept
and that advocating it in public schools would violate the establishment clause.
Discussions of creationism would still be permitted in other contexts, such as
comparative religion classes.
11. But the devil is in the details; the Edwards decision seemed to leave a loophole,
which antievolutionists have exploited. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote, in his
opinion, that “teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind
to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the
effectiveness of science instruction.” In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that
“the people of Louisiana, including those who are Christian fundamentalists, are quite
entitled, as a secular matter, to have whatever scientific evidence there may be against
evolution presented in their schools, just as Mr. Scopes was entitled to present
whatever scientific evidence there was for it.”
12. Whether Justice Scalia knows it or not, “scientific evidence against evolution” is
one of the euphemisms antievolutionists have devised to avoid referring to creation.
Authors of creation-“science” literature comb scientific journals for supposed
anomalies, then laboriously construe them as suggesting that evolution never took
place.
13. Other creationist aliases include “abrupt appearance theory” (coined by Wendell
R. Bird, the creationists’ legal strategist in the Arkansas trial) and “intelligent-design
theory” (promoted by two biology professors: Percival W. Davis of Hillsborough
Community College in Tampa, Florida, and Dean H. Kenyon of San Francisco State
University in California). Intelligent-design theory (ID theory) is a lineal descendent
of the “argument from design” propounded in 1802 by the English theologian William
Paley in his book Natural Theology. If you find a watch on the ground, Paley argued,
you naturally conclude not that it assembled itself by chance but that a watchmaker
made it. Analogously, the intricacy of nature must be the work of an omniscient
designer, the God of the Bible. Modern ID theory equates evolution with chance and
argues that intricacy must arise from design – though for establishment-clause
purposes it leaves the designer unnamed.
Monkey Business / 4
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
14. What is wrong with “alternatives to evolution”? With “evidence against
evolution”? Why not let students hear all sides of a controversy and decide for
themselves? Wouldn’t that improve their skills in critical thinking?
15. Certainly it would – in principle. But surely a good critical-thinking exercise
ought to deal with issues that are actually in contention. Evolutionary mechanisms,
rates and phylogenies all are being debated in science; whether evolution took place is
not. Even if it were a live issue, properly evaluating the literature on evolution would
take far more scientific knowledge (to say nothing of vocabulary) than most
secondary school students possess. No one would ask a ninth-grader to decide
whether a physician should use bypass surgery or balloon angioplasty to treat a patient
with clogged arteries. Yet medicine is only a branch of biology, whereas evolutionary
theory ranges across biology, geology, astronomy, physical anthropology and other
scientific disciplines. In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for
critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to
confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes
of science.
16. At least critical-thinking exercises give students some exposure to evolution.
Many teachers simply avoid the subject altogether. Others go further, acting on their
own initiative to teach creationism or straw-man distortions of evolution. As I write,
an even more pernicious assault on evolution is just starting to unfold. Early in
November 1995 the Alabama board of education ordered that all biology textbooks in
public schools carry inserts labeled “A Message from the Alabama State Board of
Education”:
a.
This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some
scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things,
such as plants, animals and humans.
b.
No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any
statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact.
c.
The word “evolution” may refer to many types of change. Evolution
describes changes that occur within a species. (White moths, for example,
may “evolve” into gray moths.) This process is microevolution, which can
be observed and described as fact. Evolution may also refer to the change
of one living thing to another, such as reptiles into birds. This process,
called macroevolution, has never been observed and should be considered
a theory. Evolution also refers to the unproven belief that random,
undirected forces produced a world of living things. There are many
unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in
your textbook, including:
d.
 Why did the major groups of animals suddenly appear in the fossil
record (known as the “Cambrian Explosion”?
Monkey Business / 5
155
160
165
170
175
180
185
190
e.
 Why have no new major groups of living things appeared in the
fossil record for a long time?
f.
 Why do major groups of plants and animals have no transitional
forms in the fossil record?
g.
 How did you and all living things come to possess such a complete
and complex set of “instructions” for building a living body?
h.
Study hard and keep an open mind. Someday, you may contribute to
the theories of how living things appeared on earth.
17. Faced with such misguided fervor, scientifically minded people often react with
bafflement and disbelief. Attack evolution? You might as well try to repeal the
heliocentric model of the solar system! American school systems, however, are far
from the forefront of scientific thought, and in many of them, I can attest, the
skirmishing is intense. To anyone who shares my concern about the future of science
education in America, I say Welcome, and I offer the following pieces of advice.
18. Get Involved. Fifteen years ago professional scientists descended upon statehouses to testify against equal-time laws. Now the action has shifted to school
districts, schools and teachers – the level at which, in American public education, the
most crucial decisions are made. Scientifically trained people can play a key role,
keeping an eye on their local schools and stepping in to remind school boards and the
broader community of the facts: that the courts have ruled that creation “science” is
not science and does not belong in the science curriculum; and that evolution is a solid
component of scientific thought and not, as the title of a popular antievolution book
has it, “a theory in crisis.”
19. A little information can go a long way. Many school boards still have not heard
that teaching creationism as science is unconstitutional. Others may plan to flout the
law, but they back off once they find out about the possible consequences. In 1994,
for instance, in Merrimack, New Hampshire, members of the National Center for
Science Education were outraged to hear that their local school board was thinking
about introducing creationism into school curriculums. I advised them to demand that
the school board consult its legal counsel; the case law is so clear that any lawyer
would advise against teaching creationism. The controversy galvanized the
community into turning out in record numbers to vote for moderates during the spring
1995 election.
20. Avoid Debates. If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to “defend
evolution,” please decline. Public debates rarely change many minds; creationists
stage them mainly in the hope of drawing large sympathetic audiences. Have you ever
watched the Harlem Globetrotters play the Washington Federals? The Federals get off
some good shots, but who remembers them? The purpose of the game is to see the
Globetrotters beat the other team.
21. And you probably will get beaten. In such a forum, scientific experts often try to
pack a semester-long course into an hour, hoping to convey the huge sweep of
Monkey Business / 6
195
200
205
210
215
220
225
230
evolution, the towering importance of its ideas, the masses of evidence in its favor.
Creationist debaters know better. They come well prepared with an arsenal of crisp,
clear, superficially attractive antievolutionary arguments – fallacious ones, yes, but far
too many for you to answer in the time provided. Even if you win the debate in some
technical sense, most of the audience will still walk away from it convinced that your
opponent has a great new science that the schools should hear about. Teachers have
enough problems. Above all else, do no harm.
22. Preserve the Middle Ground. Antievolutionist organizations insist that one
can be either an evolutionist or a Christian, not both. Such an all-or-nothing approach
makes tactical sense: Polls have shown that 86 percent of Americans identify
themselves as Christians, and most of them do not know or care much about
evolution. (A Gallup poll taken in1993 showed that nearly half of adult Americans
agree with the statement, “God created human beings pretty much in their present
form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.”) Forced to choose between
religious faith and a badly understood scientific principle, will the public choose
evolution? I doubt it.
23. But that choice is based on a false dichotomy. Some of the strongest criticism of
creation “science” has come from mainstream Christian denominations, which hold
that evolution is part of God’s plan. In McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, the
lead plaintiff, William McLean, was a Methodist minister; his supporters included
clergy from the Episcopal, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Southern Baptist and
African Methodist Episcopal churches, as well as the American Jewish Committee
and the American Jewish Congress. The true dichotomy is between biblical literalists
and nonliteralists, not between religion and science. Stripped to its essentials, the
difference between creation and evolution boils down to a question of history: Does
the universe have a history, or was everything in it created as is, all at once?
Evolutionists recognize the evidence that stars, galaxies, geological features and
living things are different today from what they were in the past; creationists deny it.
24. It is true that evolutionary theory makes no reference to the supernatural. Like
all science, it is naturalistic: it answers questions about the material or natural world
using only material explanations. Problems arise when people confuse two distinct
kinds of naturalism. Methodological naturalism simply requires that, in trying to
explain any particular observation or experimental result, an investigator may not
resort to miracles. It is the frame of mind that all scientific workers adopt on the job,
and centuries of progress have shown its value. Philosophical naturalism asserts that
the material world is all that exists – that there is nothing supernatural, no God or
gods, no creator, no creation. Many people with science backgrounds describe
themselves as philosophical naturalists, but many do not. Gregor Mendel decoupled
methodological from philosophical materialism, and so do other scientists today.
25. One of the deepest fears of conservative Christians – and a powerful motivator
in their fight against evolution – is the specter of a teacher who concludes a lesson on
Monkey Business / 7
235
240
245
evolution by saying, in effect, “So much for your religion!” In my experience, such
occurrences are next to nonexistent in primary and secondary schools, and they are
rare in universities. My own position is that advocating a nontheistic philosophy in the
science classroom is just as wrong and just as unscientific as advocating creationism
is.
26. Being a philosophical materialist myself, I take some lumps for being so
conciliatory. I sometimes get heated letters and E-mail echoing the sentiments of
William B. Provine, a biology professor at Cornell University, who wrote in the
September 5, 1988 issue of The Scientist that scientists who are also devout have to
“check [their] brains at the church house door.” Clearly the writers agree with
creationists that there can be no middle ground between science and religion. To them
I can only say: Most Americans have already made their choice to be religious. Now
you must choose which you prefer – a religious population that accepts evolution or a
religious population that rejects it – and decide what you can do to make that choice a
reality.
Monkey Business / 8
Questions should be answered in your own words, in English, unless otherwise
indicated.
Answer the question below in English.
1.
What new trend is coming to light in the cities of Friendly, Nevada and
Paradise, California?
Answer : ____________________________________________________________
Answer the question below in Hebrew.
2.
In what sense can the events at Moon, Pennsylvania be seen as an attempt to
stem the spread of obscurantism made evident in Pennsylvania and California?
Answer : ____________________________________________________________
3.
4.
5.
Answer the question below in English.
How does the Supreme Court – paragraph 3 – feel about the scientificity of the
Creation story as appearing in the Book of Genesis? Substantiate your answer.
Answer : ____________________________________________________________
What devices do the Christian Fundamentalist elements – paragraph 4 – resort
to in their attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling on the issue of
Evolution versus Creation?
Answer : ____________________________________________________________
Answer the question below in English.
Why – paragraph 5 – is evolution so fiercely opposed by the creationists?
Answer : ____________________________________________________________
Monkey Business / 9
Answer the question below in Hebrew.
6.
How and why did the Sputnik scare – paragraph 6 – which created the
impression that Soviet science was outstripping its American counterpart – tilt
the balance in the ongoing struggle between Creationism and Evolution?
Answer : ____________________________________________________________
7.
Answer the question below in English.
In what sense should the U.S. Supreme Court ruling of 1968 – paragraph 7 – be
seen as the beginning of a new era?
Answer : ____________________________________________________________
Answer the question below in Hebrew.
8.
On what grounds did Judge William R. Overton reject the Creationists’ demand
for equal time for creation “science” in schools (paragraphs 8-9)?
Answer : ____________________________________________________________
9.
10.
11.
Answer the question below in English.
Upon what crucial point does the argument between those that would teach both
evolution and creation “science” actually hinge?
Answer : ____________________________________________________________
Answer the question below in English.
What is the common denominator of the various theories mentioned in
paragraph 13?
Answer : ____________________________________________________________
Who would be the metaphorical watchmaker mentioned in paragraph 13?
Answer : ____________________________________________________________
Monkey Business / 10
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Answer the question below in English.
On what grounds does the author – paragraphs 14-15 – question the possibility
of a serious critical discussion of evolution in primary and secondary schools?
Answer : ____________________________________________________________
Answer the question below in English.
Point out the absurdity of clause b in the Message issued by the Alabama State
Board of Education – paragraph 16 – in the light of Biblical Teaching.
Answer : ____________________________________________________________
Answer the question below in English.
How does paragraph 17 account for the bafflement of scientifically minded
people when faced with the creationist onslaught?
Answer : ____________________________________________________________
Why does the author – paragraphs 20-21 – advise her fellow scientists to avoid
public debates on the issue of evolution?
Answer : ____________________________________________________________
Answer the question below in English.
Why does it make sense for the creationists – paragraphs 22-23 – to suggest that
the Christian belief and evolution are irreconcilable?
Answer : ____________________________________________________________
a. Quote the evidence suggesting that religion and a belief in evolution are not
necessarily incompatible. b. How can they be reconciled?
Answer :
a.
b.
Monkey Business / 11
Choose the best answer.
18. Evolution could conceivably be reconciled with religion once the Bible is read
a. thoroughly.
b. uncritically
c. literally.
d. allegorically.
e. ironically.
Answer the question below in English.
19. How does a philosophical materialist differ from a religious person (paragraphs
24-25)?
Answer : ____________________________________________________________
Answer the question below in Hebrew.
20. With what choice – paragraph 26 – is the evolutionist faced?
Answer : ____________________________________________________________
GLOSSARY
1.
2.
3.
The Scopes Trial, July 1925. John T. Scopes, a science teacher in Dayton,
Tennessee, was charged with teaching evolution – a theory that denies the
divine creation of Man as taught in the Bible. The teaching of evolution was at
that time prohibited by the Tennessee State law. Scopes was eventually
acquitted on a technicality. For the creationist camp the trial was a total disaster
and its most illustrious representative was mercilessly ridiculed when he took
the stand.
The Sputnik scare. In 1957 the Soviet Union launched its first satellite, named
Sputnik. This event – coming at the height of the Cold War between the Super
Powers – shocked the American political and scientific establishment and
eventually led to ever-growing investments in basic research in an attempt to
catch up with what was falsely perceived as Soviet scientific superiority.
Social Darwinism. The oft implied, tacitly assumed – though not so blatantly
stated – notion that just as in Nature the marvels of evolution have been attained
through the elimination of the weaker members of the species, so social
progress entails and perhaps even justifies the Right of Might.