When a citizen’s group pushed a bill in the Ohio legislature proposing that science education in the state’s schools be expanded to make room for alternative theories to evolution, it said it was acting against censorship.
However, some scientists say that the group that proposed the bill, Science Excellence for All Ohioans (SEAO) network, is not scientific and not right.
On Jan. 23, House Bill 481 was introduced in the Ohio General Assembly. The bill would require that origins science be taught “without religious, naturalistic, or philosophic bias or assumption.” Central to the bill is the point that teachers would be required to inform students “why origins science may generate controversy.”
SEAO maintains that “mainstream” science is biased by what it calls “methodological naturalism.” However, Boston University faculty members responded by saying this and other supposed criticisms stem from nonscientific thinking.
“The problem with the Ohio bill, as in so many others, is a deliberate twisting of the meaning of theory in science,” said BU professor Christopher Schneider. “To biologists, evolution is as much a fact as anything in science — gravity, the motion of the planets around the sun, etc. A theory in science is a general explanation for a natural phenomenon that is based on compelling and overwhelming evidence.
“The theory that planets orbit around the sun is a good example; no one has directly observed the earth orbiting the sun, but the theory that the earth orbits the sun is the simplest explanation that is consistent with observations of retrograde motion of other planets, seasonal changes and numerous other astronomical and physical observations. Evolution is a theory that explains in the simplest possible way, and without recourse to supernatural phenomena, the origin and maintenance of biological diversity.”
The Ohio bill effort is not the only one in the nation. On Jan. 18, a bill was introduced in the Washington State Senate that called for lawmakers to agree that “the teaching of the theory of evolution in the common schools of the state of Washington is repugnant to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and thereby unconstitutional and unlawful.” If the bill passes, all textbooks in Washington schools that teach or promote evolution would be removed and replaced with materials that teach the “self-evident truth of creation.”
“One can always have recourse to supernatural explanations, but those are outside of the scientific rationalist way of knowing the world,” Schneider said. “I could always say that I believe the Easter Bunny created everything, but that would be a statement of faith and, by definition, an untestable hypothesis — and therefore outside the realm of science. Scientists argue about how evolution works, the
mechanisms by which evolution occurs — not whether evolution occurs.”
Schneider added that teaching evolution alone is sufficient when trying to explain the development of life.
“But, it is important to distinguish science and faith as different ways of knowing the world. Both can add meaning to our lives and help us make sense of a complex world, but teaching faith in our public schools or institutes of higher education is simply not appropriate,” he said. “There are very good reasons for the separation of church and state in an open society… We should not be forced to push faith in our education system.”
The bill is the most recent of a historical attempt across the United States to introduce alternative theories to evolution to public schools. But, according to Schneider, “There are no legitimate competing theories to evolution. There are certainly arguments about the mechanisms of evolution, but there are no compelling scientific alternatives to the theory of evolution.
“It is clear that the proponents are trying to weaken science education in this
country and pave the way for faith-based education in our schools.”
Schneider is a biology professor, and in addition to teaching BI 504, “Evolution,” lectures on the topic of evolution for introductory biology classes.
BU professor John Finnerty offered a possible explanation for recent criticism of rationalist science education.
“In the wake of terrorism, people are trying to look for something emotionally more comforting, and they are maybe turning away from the rational. It is alarming, especially at this time, but the pendulum will probably swing back the other way.
“I do not have any concern that this is the beginning of a long-term trend, because the objective nature of the scientific pursuit means that scientific ideas are going to stand the test of time. That objective nature is the crucial difference: faith-based ideas about the material world are not really tested.”
Professor Michael Sorenson, also of the BU Biology Department, said in regard to the proponents of the bill, “Their premise is not scientific.”
Sorenson and other scientists question the terminology introduced in the bill. “‘Origins science’ … whatever they want to call it … seems to me to be simply their attempt to fill what they see as an empty spot in our explanation of the world. It goes, ‘Life is so marvelous and complex that we cannot conceive of a way this could have evolved by itself, so there must have been some sort of divine intervention.’
“I think there is a difference between freedom of expression and teachers’ obligations to use their knowledge to filter the information that is available,” Sorenson said.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
