Thanks to Joe Romm, I just became aware of the latest effort to undermine evolution education in the U.S.โand to denigrate climate science education as well. Itโs a new bill in Oklahoma, but it fits a pattern that anti-science forces have already employed successfully in Louisiana and Texas.ย As the National Center for Science Education explains of the new Oklahomaย bill:
Entitled the โScientific Education and Academic Freedom Act,โ SB 320 would, if enacted, require state and local educational authorities to โassist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversiesโ and permit teachers to โhelp students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught.โ The only topics specifically mentioned as controversial are โbiological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and humanย cloning.โ
What are the existing scientific theories pertinent to human cloning that need to be understood, analyzed, critiqued, and reviewed? Are the people who write these things even remotely clued in to the issuesย involved?
But Iย digress.
The big point here is that increasingly, evolution and climate change are being tied together in attacks on science education.ย The strategy tends to be the same: Students are encouraged to โcritiqueโ or examine โstrengths and weaknessesโ or hear โboth sidesโโbut only a few hot button subjects are singledย out.
In Louisiana, a 2008 billย demanded that students learn about โthe scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taughtโ;โbiological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming and human cloningโย were once again singled out. In other words, it was precisely the same thing thatโs now being attempted in Oklahomaโand in Louisiana, itย succeeded.
In Texas, meanwhile, recent revisions to state textbook standards now require books to โanalyze and evaluate different views on the existence of globalย warming.โ
Why this strategy from science foes? Itโs simple: Courts have said you canโt teach creationism because itโs thinly veiled religion, and if you only single out evolution for โscientificโ criticism then your motives are similarly suspect from a legalย perspective.
But if you rope in some issues where thereโs nothing obviously religious at stakeโlike climate scienceโyou may be in better shape in court. After all, the First Amendment doesnโt prevent the teaching of bad science, or the attacking of good scienceโit merely prevents the establishment of religion by government. From a legal standpoint, these latest efforts may well manage to skirt thatย problem.
From a strategic perspective, science defenders should take away a different conclusion. It is this: Standing up for good science education increasingly means protecting both evolution and climate science at the same time. We need to adjust our prioritiesย accordingly.
