Despite a recent string of legal and political setbacks, critics of the theory of evolution have taken up their fight once again in statehouses across the country.
Bills seeking to encourage students to approach the theory skeptically in public school science classes, or to allow the teaching of alternative explanations for life鈥檚 development, have emerged in at least 10 states so far this year.
The number of state-level proposals appears to have fallen slightly from last year, when bills were introduced in 12 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. None made it into law, says the nonpartisan research and policy organization, located in Denver, Colo., which has tracked bills on the issue.
| (Requires Macromedia Flash Player.) |
As of last week, this year鈥檚 batch of bills had fared no better, with none having won final approval from lawmakers. Nonetheless, several observers say they see no lessening of interest in the charged topic among state lawmakers, even if the prospects for the bills remain unclear, at best.
By the time lawmakers in the various states adjourn, most of them this spring or summer, 鈥淚 would not at all be surprised to find out that it鈥檚 a record year,鈥� in the number of bills being introduced, said Glenn Branch, the deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, an Oakland, Calif., organization that opposes what it sees as anti-evolution measures.
鈥淭here鈥檚 been a lot of interest in it,鈥� he said of the movement for such proposals.
Setting the Stage
The legislative activity this spring follows a series of well-publicized losses for those seeking to cast doubts upon evolution鈥檚 scientific status, or subject it to new criticism.
In December, a federal judge in Pennsylvania issued a lengthy, highly publicized ruling in a case from Dover, Pa., declaring that 鈥渋ntelligent design鈥� was not legitimate science but religion. Intelligent design is the belief that features of some living things, including humans, show signs of having been guided by an unnamed, possibly divine force. (鈥淧ossible Road Map Seen in Dover Case,鈥� Jan. 4, 2006.)
In January, a school district in Lebec, Calif., agreed to drop an elective philosophy class suggesting that evolutionary theory was 鈥渘ot rock solid,鈥� stated a course description. (鈥淐alif. District to Scrap Course on 鈥業ntelligent Design鈥�,鈥� Jan. 25, 2006.)
In February, the Ohio state board of education reversed an earlier decision and voted to strip language from state science standards encouraging students to 鈥渃ritically analyze鈥� evolution. (鈥淥hio Removes Anti-Evolution Language,鈥� Feb. 22, 2006.)
And in South Carolina, the state school board voted March 8 to reject similar wording in its standards, though state officials have said the debate over that language could continue.
State Proposals
Mississippi state Sen. Charles Edwin Ross introduced legislation this session seeking to expose students to criticism of evolution, saying his goal was to combat the 鈥渋ntimidation鈥� of teachers who challenge the theory鈥檚 standing.
Mr. Ross鈥� measure said that schools cannot bar a teacher from discussing 鈥渇laws or problems鈥� in evolutionary theory, or from talking about intelligent design. Though his Senate bill died in committee, Mr. Ross said he believed it has a chance of becoming law, if similar legislation could be included in a pending, education-related House bill.
| (Requires Macromedia Flash Player.) |
The Dover case, in particular, has had 鈥渜uite a lot of impact鈥� in making Mississippi school leaders wary of trying to encourage greater criticism of evolution, he said. But Mr. Ross, a practicing lawyer, said he was not deterred by the prospect of a legal challenge.
鈥淚 don鈥檛 feel it鈥檚 proper for a judge to say whether something is credible science or not credible science,鈥� the Republican senator said. 鈥淚ntelligent design has laid an ax to the trunk of the evolution tree.鈥�
The theory of evolution holds that humans and other living things have evolved through random mutation and natural selection, an explanation that is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community. Over the last few years, however, activists across the country have launched new efforts to raise doubts about the theory, and to rewrite state standards and school curricula to reflect such criticism.
The vast majority of scientists reject intelligent design as religion in disguise, or at least an unscientific view. Those scientists also say that critics overstate alleged weaknesses in evolutionary theory, which they say is supported by a mountain of scientific research.
Academic Freedom
Critics of evolutionary theory remain unconvinced. Some proposals, such as a recently defeated bill in Utah, seek to alter school curricula to reflect the view that there is a lack of scientific consensus about evolution.
Several other state proposals liken the right to question evolution, or scientific concepts generally, to issues of academic freedom.
A pending Missouri bill would forbid schools from disciplining teachers for attempting to distinguish between 鈥渢heory, hypothesis, conjecture鈥� and opinion from 鈥渧erified empirical data.鈥� A Missouri science teachers organization, which opposes the bill, says the measure is an underhanded attempt to denigrate evolution, even though the legislation doesn鈥檛 mention the term specifically.
In Oklahoma, where at least four evolution-related bills are being debated this session, one proposal would allow teachers to discuss intelligent design while prohibiting them from emphasizing religious beliefs.
The failure of bills on the subject of evolution is often as much a reflection of lawmakers鈥� attitudes toward local control of schools as it is an indication of their opinions on the theory itself, Mr. Branch of the National Center for Science Education speculated.
鈥淭here鈥檚 a kind of folk wisdom among legislators that it really isn鈥檛 their job to micromanage curriculum,鈥� he said.
One piece of legislation, offered by Wisconsin Rep. Terese E. Berceau, seeks to defend, rather than dispute, evolution鈥檚 scientific status. The bill says school boards must ensure that any material presented as science is 鈥渢estable as a scientific hypothesis, describes only natural processes,鈥� and is consistent with definitions of science used by the congressionally chartered National Academy of Sciences鈥攚hich strongly defended the teaching of evolution.
Ms. Berceau, a Democrat, said she had received encouragement about her bill from scientists across the country. She does not believe it has a chance of passing the legislature before the regular session ends in May, though she plans to introduce it again next year.
鈥淚 don鈥檛 see that we have to pass the bill to accomplish [something],鈥� she said. 鈥淭o me, this is an education project for the public.鈥�
