Even after decades of scientific backing, the evolutionary
theory of “survival of the fittest” hasn’t quite
proven itself the fittest everywhere in the contentious arena of
science education. The small town of Grantsburg in northwest
Wisconsin recently revised its school curriculum to allow the
teaching of creationism.
During a review last month of the science curriculum for this
district of about 1,000 students, the Grantsburg school board added
language calling for inclusion of “various
models/theories” of origin in science classes.
Joni Burgin, the Grantsburg superintendent of schools, said
science classes “should not be totally inclusive of just one
scientific theory.”
In response, more than 300 biology and religious studies faculty
from across the state have signed a letter asking the Grantsburg
school district to reverse its decision. Their message echoes a
prior letter signed by 43 deans of Wisconsin public
universities.
University ecology and evolutionary biology Prof. David Mindell
said creationist theories belong in comparative religions classes
rather than science curricula.
“Intelligent design and creationism are simply not
science,” he said. “The science curriculum in high
schools should be scientific.”
“Intelligent design” is the notion that
Earth’s life is too complex for any explanation other than
design by an intelligent creator.
He explained that scientific theories require a standard process
of inquiry and examination of evidence, which is not followed by
proponents of creationism.
“What they posit is supernatural causation, and of course
being supernatural, there is no tangible evidence,” he
said.
Although Wisconsin state law requires that evolution be taught,
school districts may design their own science curriculum, said John
Donovan, a spokesperson for the State Department of Public
Instruction. Creationism can be included.
A U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1987, Edwards vs. Aguillard,
struck down a Louisiana law requiring any teaching of evolution to
be accompanied by instruction in “creation science.” In
the majority opinion, Justice William Brennan wrote that the
Louisiana statute violated the separation of church and state by
purposefully advancing a specific religious belief.
However, the court has not ruled definitively on whether
creationism can be taught as part of a science curriculum.
The court’s ruling didn’t stop Pennsylvania’s
Dover Area School Board from voting last month to require the
teaching of alternative theories to evolution, such as intelligent
design.
In March, the Ohio Board of Education also narrowly approved a
curriculum some critics claim opens the door to evolution.
The decision to promote creationism in science classrooms by
these school districts remains an anomaly nationwide.
However, Mindell said, “we cannot take it for granted that
the science curriculum will remain unpoliticized around the topic
of evolution in particular.”
— Daily News Editor Alison Go and the Associated Press
contributed to this report.