The Honorable Ben Bridges
Suite 401 Legislative Office Building
18 Capitol Square
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Dear Representative Bridges:
The House Bill 179 regarding the teaching of scientific theories in elementary and
secondary science curriculums seems to be both logically incompatible with the modern
educational system and potentially threatening to the perpetuation of genuine scientific
discourse and learning.
If such an amendment were passed, we would not only be doing a severe disservice to the
students of Georgia by misrepresenting the institution of science, but also opening the
door to the propagation of unsubstantiated religious doctrine in the classroom, which
violates the crucial separation of church and state institutions. For these and other
reasons, I am strongly opposed to this Bill and what follows is a brief justification for my
opposition.
Firstly, it is important to note that we are discussing the material that is taught in science
class. That which falls outside of the scientific realm obviously does not qualify as
material appropriate for a science class. This includes any explanation of the origins of
mankind that does not provide observed evidence as support or is not acknowledged as a
viable theory by the scientific community at large. All explanations that fit inside these
boundaries are more appropriately taught in a metaphysical or religion class.
Secondly, Section I (a) of the Bill states that all scientific evidence “supporting . . .
evolution theory and . . . not supporting the theory” must be taught in elementary and
secondary schools. This statement is problematic because the scientific community as a
whole has accepted the theory of evolution as being the most plausible and empiricallysupported theory to explain the origins of humankind. The 20th century scientific
philosopher Bruno Latour claimed that ideas become solidified into fact after having
withstood trials of strength throughout the years. They gradually become accepted
throughout the scientific community as a result of their consistent validity and strength
when placed under the scrutiny of the opposition. In other words, the popularity and
strength of the theory of evolution is a well-deserved testament to its potential validity, or
at least its superiority over other similarly aimed scientific theories.
Moreover, the existence of deviant factions within this community does invalidate the
most popular and scientifically sound explanation; the theory of evolution. Until a theory
arises that is more credible, widely accepted, and provides empirical evidence as support
(something which could happen in the future), the evolution theory is the best choice to
teach students in science class.
To further elaborate on this point, let us consider the theory of evolution to exist within
its own scientific paradigm. In other words, it is part of a larger thought collective that
has evaluated possible explanations for the origin of mankind and has agreed upon this
theory. In order for a paradigm shift to occur, during which a new, more heavily
supported explanation would replace the theory of evolution, the new theory would have
to be considered scientific, which excludes most alternative rationalizations relating to
spirituality or religion. Additionally, it is necessary, as the famous philosopher Thomas
Kuhn claimed, that the old paradigm fail to adequately serve its intended purpose by
becoming obsolete in light of new discoveries that constitute the new paradigm. This,
however, is clearly not the case since no theory explaining the origin of mankind, that is
considered scientific, has provided a more rational explanation.
It is also important to note that a double standard is imposed when the teaching of certain
theories of science is prohibited, yet numerous others, including the theory of gravity,
theory of thermodynamics, and the theory of relativity, are allowed to be taught without
opposition. In an interview with the Associated Press Writer John Hanna, you
recommended that we “teach [the students] the truth or don't teach them anything.'' In a
similar fashion, I implore you to either oppose the teaching of all scientific theory or
oppose the teaching of none. Anything less would be contradictory and logically
incoherent.
Sincerely,
PO Box Georgia Tech Station
Atlanta, GA 30332-1250