Textbook Panel Bolsters Stand on Teaching Evolution

In a strong repudiation of the views of religious fundamentalists, the authors of proposed textbook guidelines voted Thursday to strengthen earlier recommendations that evolution be taught California school children as scientific fact.

The Science Committee of the California Curriculum Commission unanimously agreed to adopt as its final formal recommendation a 187-page framework for science textbooks that provides a more detailed argument for the teaching of evolution than had an earlier draft, which was much criticized by Christian fundamentalists.

The document, which is expected to be endorsed today by the full commission, was immediately praised by scientists and an anti-censorship group, and assailed by advocates of a literal interpretation of the Bible’s version of the origin of life.

“I think this (document) is much stronger,” said Michael Hudson, Western director of People for the American Way. “It explains in even greater detail why evolution is an accepted scientific fact and why so-called ‘creation science’ is religious belief and not appropriate for the science curriculum.”

His chief adversary in the latest battle over the teaching of evolution, the Rev. Louis Sheldon, said the committee appeared to be “thumbing its nose” not only at religious groups but also at the State Board of Education, which had characterized earlier drafts of the framework as being “too defensive” about the teaching of evolution.

“What they have presented is an advocacy document for evolution,” said Sheldon, who is chairman of the Anaheim-based Traditional Values Coalition. “Maybe their intention was to say ‘Hey, you didn’t hear what we said and we’re going to say it even stronger.’ ”

Both sides acknowledged that their attention will now shift to the 11-member education board, which will make the final decision on the adoption of a framework for textbooks in November. Saying they consider a majority of the board still undecided, representatives of both views said they will continue to bombard members with mailings and telephone calls in the hope of persuading them.

Agnes Chan, a board member who sits on the curriculum commission, said she will urge her colleagues to accept the proposed guidelines and “hopefully, they will agree with me.”

She said the board’s earlier criticism of the document as being “too defensive” was never meant to suggest, as Sheldon had interpreted it, that the recommendations on the teaching of evolution be watered down.

“The original draft (appeared to be) coming to the defense of evolution. I said, ‘We don’t need to come to the defense of evolution; evolution is a science,’ ” she said.

The new version states simply: “There is no scientific dispute that evolution has occurred and continues to occur; that is why evolution is regarded as scientific fact.” It notes that “creation science,” on the other hand, has been “thoroughly studied and rejected by the leading scientific societies.”

To make its point even stronger, the committee included a legal opinion from the education board’s own lawyer that to give “equal time” to the teaching of creation science in California classrooms “is not appropriate and may be unconstitutional.”

The committee of educators and scientists cautioned teachers, however, that they should make it clear to students that what they are teaching is a scientific perspective on creation which is not meant to replace religious beliefs.