Editorial: Controversy over Evolution Is Not Scientific—It’s Political

December 2001

Judith S. Weis

Creationists have been busy this year on several fronts. They have pursued their goal of introducing creationism into science courses through state legislatures, through boards of education, and lately—ominously—through Congress. On every front, however, they have been met by AIBS and other scientific organizations striving to counteract their efforts.

Bills that would undermine the teaching of evolution have been introduced in several state legislatures. An Arkansas bill prohibiting the teaching of "fraud"—including, they claim, Archaeopteryx and various fossil hominids—was only narrowly defeated. The Education Committee of the Michigan House is considering a bill calling evolution an "unproven theory" and specifying that students be taught "intelligent design" theory, a catchphrase for creationism. A Louisiana resolution took an unexpected approach, asserting that Darwin was a racist whose evolutionary theory was responsible for Hitler’s genocidal pursuit of an Aryan master race. That resolution passed the Louisiana House, but only after references to Darwin were removed.

State boards of education have also been sites for intense antievolution activity. In Pennsylvania, proposed science standards replaced the requirement to "explain the mechanism and theory of evolution" with an admonition to "analyze evidence of fossil records..., etc. that support or do not support the theory of evolution" (emphasis added). Imagine if physicists had to give evidence "for and against the theory of gravity"! Obviously, the words in italics are merely a code phrase that opens the door to teaching creationism. AIBS and other scientific societies communicated with the Pennsylvania State Board of Education, which reverted to standards strongly supporting evolution; the state legislature approved those standards on 15 November 2001. In Hawaii, a board of education member introduced a resolution calling for equal time for teaching creationism. After communications from AIBS and other scientific organizations, and an outcry from citizens and scientists who attended the school board meeting, the resolution was defeated.

We are now confronted, for the first time, with efforts at the federal level. An innocuous-sounding amendment introduced by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act calls evolution a subject that "generates...continuing controversy"; thus, the amendment advises, students should be prepared to be "informed participants in public discussions" of the subject. But controversy over evolution is not scientific—it’s political, like controversy over many issues. Why single out evolution? So that the antievolution agenda of "intelligent design" creationism can be put into play. The Discovery Institute, home of "intelligent design" and source of the amendment’s language, celebrated the resolution, asserting that "the Darwinian monopoly on public science education, and perhaps on the biological sciences in general, is ending." Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) claimed that the amendment vindicated the Kansas school board, which in 1999 strove to remove evolution from the state’s science curriculum (he neglected to mention that the public later rejected the board’s actions). In August, a coalition of scientific societies sent a letter to a congressional conference committee asking that the Santorum amendment be dropped. The committee will decide whether to retain the measure.

We are holding the line, thanks to Ellen Paul, the AIBS Public Policy Committee, the evolution listserv managers, and others in AIBS, as well as our colleagues at the American Geophysical Union and the American Geological Institute and other societies. We hope to take a more proactive approach in the coming year. I have no doubt that the creationists will continue their efforts, and we will have to step up ours to counteract them. Eternal vigilance will have to be our watchword.

back to BioScience Editorials