ChristiansUnite Forums

Senator trying to get science standards rewritten

Published: Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 6:00 am


By Ron Barnett
STAFF WRITER

Growing up, Katie Dixon learned two versions of the way the world came to be as it is today -- one from her father and one from her school.

Creationism and evolution.

Her dad says he didn't try to force the literal biblical view on her. She says she accepted his teaching as a child, but came to her own conclusion after high school by reading on her own about intelligent design, which says the theory that humans evolved from lower life forms is full of holes.

"If you're going to teach evolution as a science you must teach all the areas in which it falls short," said Katie, now a junior biology major at Clemson University and an aspiring pediatric surgeon. "And that is something that is not being done."

If a proposal making its way through the state Department of Education gets final approval, Katie's little sister, Emily, a sophomore at Wren High, and students in public schools across South Carolina will be exposed to the questions some scientists are raising about evolution. And, like Katie, they'll be encouraged to make up their own mind about it.

To most scientists it's akin to arguing whether two plus two is really four, but a committee charged with overseeing education reform in South Carolina is set to examine whether students in public schools should "critically analyze" the case for and against biological evolution.

Darwin doesn't have anything to worry about if his claims can be backed up with scientific evidence, says state Sen. Mike Fair, a Greenville Republican who thinks the 19th century botanist will fall flat.

Fair is trying to get the state science standards related to evolution rewritten. The standard now calls for students to show that they understand the scientific evidence that "supports" evolution. Fair, a member of the Education Oversight Committee, believes that's teaching a bias in favor of one theory while ignoring others.

He believes his approach, calling for critical analysis of all sides of the subject, is not in conflict with a ruling last month by a federal judge in Dover, Pa., that intelligent design is "a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory."

His proposal "doesn't introduce intelligent design or creationism or any other ism," he said. "It just says teach it all. Be critical of it. Pretty much what scientists would say. Ask why."

Dr. Jerry Waldvogel, a biology professor at Clemson University who was on the review panel for the current science standards, said all but a handful of scientists -- most of whom aren't biologists -- already have asked why and found the answer in Darwin's theory.

And he believes that regardless of whether the term "intelligent design" is inserted into the standards, it's sure to be a part of the discussion if Fair's proposal passes. Intelligent design, he said, is the only alternative to Darwinism that's being put forward as a scientific theory -- which he believes it isn't.

"Essentially, what Sen. Fair is proposing is to teach a faith-based explanation in a science class. And not only is that bad science education, it's also unconstitutional in a public school," he said.

Proponents of intelligent design say random mutation and natural selection alone can't account for the complexity and diversity of life. They don't say who or what had a hand in the process but refer only to a "designer."

Greg Dixon, father of the Clemson biology major, said he has found the Bible to be reliable in its spiritual principles, and therefore accepts its account of creation literally -- which makes God the designer.

The Bible "says some radical things in all sorts of areas -- creation being one," the chief technology officer for a large Greenville technology distributor said.

But some parents, such as Tyla Gary, believe the scientific community at large has it right when it comes to evolution and that teaching contrary viewpoints held by a tiny minority of scientists will serve only as a distraction.

"I feel like if it's going to make the conflict escalate from that, they shouldn't do it," she said of Fair's proposal to inject alternative theories into the curriculum. "At some point or another the religion is going to come into it."

Local school officials are reluctant to rock the boat on evolution despite their own leanings on the subject.

Dr. Grady Butler, a member of the Greenville County school board who is also a Presbyterian pastor, said he believes in "the biblical creation approach."

"I don't think we descended from any lower animals and so forth," he said.

But he doesn't consider himself knowledgeable enough in science to push for a change in the curriculum.

"I have always in my educational career tried to be open-minded and see that there are other views," he said. "An intelligent person is able to entertain more than one view of anything."

Ann Sutherlin, one of the more outspoken members of the board and a staunch conservative, said she doesn't want to jump into the controversy unless it is raised on the local level -- which it hasn't been.

"I don't mind running out in front of a freight train for a good cause, but I prefer actually to wait until it is presented," she said. "Whenever it comes to my level I will be glad to discuss it."

But she added that she believes one side of many issues related to education -- the liberal side -- tends to hold sway whenever such questions arise.

Ron Wilson, a member of the state Board of Education who represents Anderson and Oconee counties, makes no bones about it: He believes in a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation, that God created the universe in six days, and he doesn't think science conflicts with that.

He supports Fair's proposal but thinks it doesn't go far enough.

"I think we ought to just call it what it is," he said. "It's creationism."

Wilson, a Powdersville resident who joined the state board a year ago, said he doesn't think the subject of how life came into being can be taught without religion entering into the discussion. He believes evolutionists are exercising faith in arriving at their explanation as well.

"They're not opposed to us teaching religion in biology classrooms. They just want to make sure it's their religion," he said.

If Fair succeeds in getting the standard revised, Wilson believes it could have a good chance of being approved by the state board, which will have four new members coming on this month. The board voted 10-5 last month in favor of keeping evolution as an unquestionable explanation for biological diversity. The board sent the standards to the EOC for review, in compliance with the state Education Accountability Act.

The EOC, which voted 8-7 to consider revisions on four of the seven science standards related to evolution, has no authority to change standards but only to recommend changes to the state board.

The challenge comes at a time when South Carolina has just been ranked among the nation's best for its teaching of evolution. It was one of seven states that earned an "A" for its science standards in a report issued by the Fordham Foundation last month.

Aside from the debate over religion versus science are more practical issues for the committee to consider, said Jo Anne Anderson, executive director of the Education Oversight Committee.

When the EOC's academic affairs subcommittee meets Jan. 19 to broach the issue, she plans to have a panel of educators there to discuss how much theory students have time to study in 150 hours of biology class, a third of which is spent doing lab experiments. She doesn't expect the subcommittee to vote on the academic merits of teaching critical views of evolution.

"I think it is well beyond our capacity to make a decision on science," she said.