The Facts of Life
Evolution, for more than 100 years the cornerstone of biological science, is hardly a pop theory, but the state Board of Education is treating the teaching of evolution with a skittishness that defies all logic. Gov. George Deukmejian’s current board, influenced by religious fundamentalists, is making thinking people across the country nervous with its ill-advised attempt to soften previously approved science textbook guidelines that declare that evolution is scientific fact.
In an effort to both placate the religious right and preserve the intent and substance of the evolution teaching guidelines, state Supt. of Public Instruction Bill Honig has proposed amendments that are due to be considered today. The amendments, reflecting a compromise worked out between Honig and board President Francis Laufenberg, specifically delete the reference to evolution as “scientific fact.” It has now become, through some amazing political evolution, merely “accepted scientific explanation.”
The compromise also deletes a reference in the guidelines to a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a Louisiana law that placed the teaching of evolution on equal footing with instruction in “creation science,” the biblical interpretation of human origin. And it adds superfluous sentences that remind a reader that some people “reject the theory of evolution purely on the basis on religious faith . . . personal beliefs should be respected and not demeaned.”
Of course personal religious beliefs should be respected. But in keeping with board policy, the public school discussion of personal and religious beliefs must be placed in the proper context--in social science or literature courses, not in science.
The board should approve the unaltered guidelines as recommended earlier this year by the state Curriculum Commission, which is composed largely of educators. The original guidelines are also supported by numerous teachers organizations and the Democratic chairman and the ranking Republican of the state Senate Education Committee.
Honig suggests that the amended guidelines would still preserve the integrity of teaching evolution and that the criticism is overblown. Certainly, there is no danger that creationism will replace evolution in public school science classes. But the alteration of the language, however subtle, would send the wrong message to textbook publishers, who look eagerly for direction from California, the largest buyer of textbooks in the nation. Publishers could interpet the proposed board action as a reason to start sidestepping or diminishing evolution discussion in textbooks. A guideline change would also send an ominous signal to science teachers. They know that there will always be those who seek to skew how science is taught. Teachers also need to know that they will get vigorous and unqualified support from a state education board that bends not to matters of faith but only to matters of fact.
