THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION Nov 29, 2002 issue (Vol 49/14)

Words, Science, and the State of Evolution

By LAWRENCE M. KRAUSS

In many ways, words are a scientist's enemy. They lack the

precision of numbers, and their potential ambiguity makes them

ill suited to describe or help predict physical phenomena.

Opponents of science can also use words to confuse matters

when it comes to scientific education.

In the nationwide attack on science teaching in public

schools, the latest battleground is Ohio, and the newest

weapon is careful wording that appears to accept evolution as

the basis of our modern understanding of biology, but that at

the same time appears to distinguish evolution from other

pillars of modern science.

For the first time in the 77 years following the Scopes trial

in Tennessee, the word "evolution" appears in the science

standards proposed by Ohio's State Board of Education, meaning

that public-school students will finally be guaranteed the

opportunity to learn about that cornerstone of modern biology.

Unfortunately, however, the specifics of the proposed language

present a great danger to science education, not just in Ohio

but throughout the United States.

An apparently innocuous phrase suggests that students learn

"how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze

aspects of evolutionary theory." On the surface, that is not

an unreasonable expectation; similar language could usefully

be applied to any scientific theory. However, the language

appears only in the section of the standards associated with

evolution. Its absence elsewhere suggests that evolutionary

theory alone is the subject of controversy among scientists.

It is important to stress that there is no such controversy

about evolution. In a recent electronic survey of the more

than 10 million articles that have appeared in over 20 major

science journals during the past 12 years, Leslie C. Lane, a

biologist at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, found

115,000 articles that used the keyword "evolution," and most

of those articles referred to biological evolution.

"Intelligent design," often promoted by religious groups as

the alternative to evolution, appeared as a keyword in 88

articles. All but 11 of those were engineering articles (where

one certainly hopes that intelligent design exists); of the

remaining 11, eight were critical of the scientific basis of

the intelligent-design alternative in biology. The remaining

three articles were not in research journals.

It is clear that evolution is as central to modern biology as

Newton's laws are to physics. In fact, the board of the

American Association for the Advancement of Science passed a

resolution in October stating that "the contemporary theory of

biological evolution is one of the most robust products of

scientific inquiry" (the resolution continued that the lack of

evidence for the "so-called 'intelligent-design theory' makes

it improper to include as part of science education"). But

despite that absence of controversy, the ambiguous language in

Ohio's proposed science standards gives the national movement

against science education precisely the opening it wants.

In 1997, the creationist author and law professor Phillip E.

Johnson explained what he called a "wedge strategy" to bring

God back into the classroom: "My idea is to clear a space by

legitimating the issue, by exhausting the other side, by using

up all their ridicule." Part of the strategy is to avoid

explicit mention of religion, but to attack the "materialism"

associated with mainstream science in general, and evolution

in particular. To further his goals, Johnson helped create a

religious think tank, the Center for Science and Culture. (The

original, more politically charged name was the Center for the

Renewal of Science and Culture.)

A document claiming to describe the center's mission of a

"wedge strategy" lists two specific goals: "to defeat

scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural,

and political legacies" and "to replace materialistic

explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and

human beings are created by God." It proposed beginning

specific actions, including attacking science teaching in

public schools, by 2003. Weekly wedge updates on the Web (see

http://www.arn.org) describe progress toward achieving those

goals.

Right on schedule, this year two representatives of the Center

for Science and Culture, including its director, Stephen C.

Meyer, appeared before Ohio's Board of Education, to debate

(with me and Kenneth Miller, a biologist from Brown

University) the merits of evolution versus those of

intelligent design. During the debate, Meyer did not mention

God or the wedge strategy. Instead, he suggested an apparent

compromise that he called "teaching the controversy" -- that

is, requiring teachers to discuss what he argued is a growing

controversy among scientists over evolutionary theory.

Groups like Meyer's are touting Ohio's proposed language as

just what they asked for. Indeed, Phillip Johnson descended on

Ohio for a whirlwind tour. "Ohio is not a minor state," he

told one large audience. Referring to the brief removal of

evolution from the science curriculum in another state, he

pointed out that "Kansas took a similar step, but it was not

as well planned. And Kansas is a marginal state -- not one the

Eastern establishment pays much attention to." He added that

Ohio's decision "is a victory in the battle to free science

classes from the grip of Charles Darwin," an Ohio newspaper

reported.

If the current language about evolution remains in the final

Ohio standards, the wedge strategy may succeed a year ahead of

schedule. When other states next review their science

standards, intelligent-design proponents would point to the

Ohio language as evidence that evolution is controversial. It

would then be only a short step to requesting equal time for

alternatives that challenge the traditional scientific method,

like intelligent design. Indeed, the statements by Johnson

underscore the fact that the issue goes beyond Ohio.

The seductiveness of the wedge strategy is that it seems to be

based on an appeal to fairness, which resonates particularly

well in the United States. Unfortunately, however, science is

not fair, and communicating that fact is a vital part of

teaching what science is all about. Ideas that do not stand

the test of experiment, or that make no useful predictions

that can be empirically tested, are either discarded or fall

by the wayside.

Nor is science democratic. Ideas are not selected by a popular

vote. Some people in Ohio and elsewhere have argued that

evolution should be singled out in high-school standards

because of the strong public reaction to the issue. It is true

that evolution pushes many popular buttons. However, it is the

business of science-standards committees and state boards of

education to help promote scientific literacy, based on sound

scientific scholarship, and not to cave in to political,

religious, or other popular pressures.

When ambiguous language muddies the water, as the language of

the proposed Ohio standards does, the best solution is to

remove the words. There is still time to act in Ohio. The

Board of Education will make its final decision on the

proposed standards in early December.

For the good of students in Ohio, and for students in other

states that will soon be the focus of wedge-strategy

lobbyists, one hopes that good sense will reign. If the wedge

remains, then good science teaching throughout the country may

be threatened by the singular power of bad language.

Lawrence M. Krauss is a professor of physics and astronomy,

and chairman of the physics department, at Case Western

Reserve University. His most recent book is Atom: An Odyssey

From the Big Bang to Life on Earth -- and Beyond (Little,

Brown, 2001).

Copyright 2002 by The Chronicle of Higher Education