Earlier this year, I wrote an article titled "Syllabus by natural selection" (Feb. 2) expressing discontent about how Indiana was close to passing a bill which would enable the teaching of intelligent design in public school science classes. That bill has luckily not yet passed. Unfortunately, a similar bill just passed in Tennessee, where on April 10 House Bill 368/Senate Bill 893 became law.
As with the iterations proposed in Indiana and some other states, this bill supports science teachers in instructing and discussing alternatives to evolution. Its passing, despite strong opposition by scientists in Tennessee and around the nation, was by an alarmingly high margin of 3 to 1. That margin, as well as the governor's inaction toward vetoing the bill, does not reflect well upon Tennessee.
In an unpleasant way, it is somewhat fitting such a bill was passed in Tennessee. The state has certainly set a historical precedent for discrediting evolution. There was, of course, the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, in which state law prohibiting the teaching of evolution was affirmed. The upholding of the law in 1925, though, is not even the saddest part of Tennessee's anti-evolution past. Tennessee incredibly continued to outlaw the teaching of evolution until 1967. Thus, the upholding of science alone lasted for fewer than 50 years in Tennessee.
Not only that, by voting yes on these bills, 75 percent of the Tennessee state representatives are supporting the notion that there can be alternatives to evolution which are pertinent to science classes. And though he did not completely agree with it, Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam shockingly did not veto the bill.
Haslam does not believe that the bill "changes the scientific standards that are taught in our schools or the curriculum that is used by our teachers." Yet this will only hold true if a student has a worthy and respectable science teacher. Qualified teachers will continue to abstain from teaching creationism. The fact that the topic is now legal subject material will not deter them from imparting knowledge of solely real science.
On the other hand, the bill allows for the dismantling of some of the scientific standards which are taught in Tennessee schools. As teaching material, the idea of creationism is not at all similar to the reality of evolution. By giving teachers free reign to teach an idea as a plausible alternative to what has been empirically observed and supported, Haslam has legalized the distortion of scientific fact in the classroom setting. If science instructors teach creationism in their classes, then the bill has done more than change scientific standards - it has negated them in favor of superstition.
In Tennessee, where representatives have overwhelmingly supported the teaching of alternatives to evolution, it is not an extreme assumption that many of their constituents who are teachers will wholeheartedly embrace their new freedom. This is a scary thought. The decision about whether major scientific theories and data are worthy of instruction will be up to the teachers personally.
That is unacceptable, and teachers who start to teach creationism in school will be doing their students a great disservice.
Moreover, teachers who preach creationism will be jeopardizing the futures of students who may want to enter scientific professions later on. For example, modern biology is completely intertwined with evolution. Indeed, evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." A teacher who uses his newfound freedom to omit the teaching of evolution in favor of creationism, then, denies students a fundamental understanding of a major field of science. One cannot simply substitute creationism for evolution and get the same conclusions, either. No faith-based reasoning can be verified scientifically like evolution can.
As many people have expressed, the stronger pro-creationism stance taken by Tennessee no doubt will affect the state's appearance in the scientific and academic communities. To be sure, proclaiming that one of the most important scientific realizations of all time is up for "debate and disputation" does make the state appear backward. What is surprising is that the bill was passed so fervently despite the strong objections of scientists and science professionals. It is regrettable that the state's legislative body would ignore these protests and go on to enact a law which will not be beneficial to its residents. Haslam should be criticized too for failing to be a voice of reason when given the opportunity, even though he was apprehensive about the bill.
As I stated in my prior article, theological holdings such as creationism would be apt subject material for theology or literature classes, where religious tenets are not portrayed as truth so much as a part of human history, culture and philosophy.
In those settings, differing opinions and varying perspectives may well result in constructive discussion and intellectual growth. Tennessee's validation of creationism, though, will only retard the proper teaching, embracing and pursuit of scientific truth.
Alex Yahanda is a senior associate editor for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at a.yahanda@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: U.Va. Health lets fear trump its mission to do no harm
By Editorial Board | 9 hours agoIt is high time to resist these authoritative and dangerous actions before there are no federal avenues left for resistance.
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 3 days agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
