BATTLES between evolutionists and creationists for the hearts and minds of
schoolchildren in the US have raged for decades. But last week鈥檚 adoption by the
Kansas State Board of Education of a science curriculum largely purged of
references to evolution has sent a chill down the spines of many scientists and
teachers.
鈥淭his is not just more of the same,鈥� says Steven Stanley, a palaeobiologist
at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and a prominent figure in the debate.
鈥淭his is a tangible victory for them like we haven鈥檛 seen in decades.鈥�
In the past, creationists have argued that evolution by natural selection
should be taught as just one theory for explaining the diversity of life,
alongside biblical teachings. The approach they adopted in Kansas marks a
departure: rather than trying to get creation science accepted into the
curriculum, they have sought to exclude references to evolutionary theory.
Advertisement
State curriculum standards, set by elected boards of education, give teachers
guidance on what they should cover. A proposed draft put to the Kansas board by
biology teachers and scientists referred to natural selection, descent from
common ancestors, the origins of life from nonliving biochemical processes and
the cosmological evolution of the Universe. But the board voted six to four in
favour of an alternative version prepared with the help of the Creation Science
Association for Mid-America (CSA) in Cleveland, Missouri.
While the standards don鈥檛 prevent teachers from discussing evolution, many
fear they will come under pressure not to do so. 鈥淚 have a lot of parents who
make it difficult,鈥� says John Wachholz, a biology teacher at Salina High School
Central, who is prepared to speak out because he has the backing of Salina鈥檚
local school board.
The new standards drop the statement: 鈥淓volution by natural selection is a
broad, unifying theoretical framework in biology.鈥� Cosmological evolution is
excluded from the glossary and the definition of biological evolution contains
no reference to common ancestors. The role of natural selection in forming new
species is not mentioned.
Subtle additions bolster ideas favoured by creation scientists. For instance,
the Mount St Helens eruption is mentioned to show that 鈥渁t least some stratified
rocks may have been laid down quickly鈥濃�攁n observation used by creationists
to argue against accepted views of geological time.
Kansas is unique in the 鈥渢horoughness with which evolution and related
concepts were expunged鈥�, says Molleen Matsumura of the National Center for
Science Education in Berkeley, California. But Tom Willis of the CSA sees it
differently: 鈥淲e removed all historical theories, including creationist
辞谤颈驳颈苍蝉.鈥�
Although they鈥檙e in a tiny minority, some researchers support the Kansas
decision. 鈥淚 see it as evidence that more and more people are questioning the
scientific validity of evolution,鈥� says John Baumgardner, who studies fluid
dynamics at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. But most concur
with Peter Folger, a spokesman for the American Geophysical Union in Washington
DC. 鈥淭his is the most egregious deletion of evolutionary theory,鈥� he says.
Janet Waugh, a member of the Kansas State Board of Education who voted
against the new standards, fears that the state鈥檚 children will do poorly on
national standardised tests that include questions about evolution. 鈥淚 think
it鈥檚 going to hurt our children academically. I鈥檒l be anxious to see if there鈥檚
a backlash.鈥�
Whether or not the Kansas curriculum standards are eventually overturned,
however, observers expect creationists to try the same strategy in other states.
鈥淚t鈥檚 a wake-up call for earth scientists, biologists, any scientist really,
that this is an attack,鈥� says Folger.