Science Teaching Controversy

Recently, the news in TN has involved the introduction, and today, passing of a controversial bill involving the teaching of science. The way I'm describing this is very vague, and this is intentional. While the bill itself is clear and concise (well, maybe not conceptually), the media reaction to it is anything but. In it's own words, the bill seeks to "[help] students to understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories." This doesn't or shouldn't sound controversial, but given the history of this country, and in particular Tennessee, and the fact that this bill is getting so much attention, it's almost impossible to not immediately make the connection to the creationism-evolution debate, of which the bill is most certainly a part.

The previous sentence captures in a nutshell what is so interesting about this issue. On one hand, the bill itself contains very little that any reasonable person would find objectionable: It simply states that in teaching science, critique of existing scientific theories, and discussion of alternatives (initiated only by students) should be allowed. The governor of TN, Bill Haslam, who has been under intense scrutiny, has made much the same point, saying that it wasn't clear to him what if anything the bill would change.

It's not just that the bill is unobjectionable. Far from being unobjectionable (which has neutral connotations), I would argue that the bill comes across as distinctly appealing. It stresses the value of unimpeded discussion, and the freedom to debate any topic that seems problematic. This embodies values that are central to both the United States of America AND to the practice of scientific inquiry.

Now, if the issues at stake in the bill were simply those that are explicitly stated, there would be no reason for new headlines like the following: "TN Governor Signs Law Protecting Creationist, Denialist Science Teachers and Their Theories" (From democratic underground)

While this title reflects a definite resistance to the bill, this resistance isn't to the bill's explicit meaning, but instead to the implications that it would have for the separation between church and state, and in particular, the teaching of creationism in school. The asymmettry between the bill and its opposition reflects the fact that they're two narratives that are being used to account for what's going on: the narrative of the separation between church and state, and another narrative about the need for free and open discussion in this country. Proponents of the bill are claiming that it provides a way to ensure the open exchange of ideas. Critics remain mute on that topic and instead claim that the bill will protect teachers or students who wish to bring religion into the classroom.

The simultaneous coexistence of multiple narratives that make sense of a situation is something that happens all the time. Different narratives stress different meanings, and skew situations in different ways. What is so interesting about the current case is the different values that are elicited by the narratives. The case against the Tennessee bill (and against other similar bills) is practically being strangled to death by its adherence to multiple, conflicting values.

Opposition to the bill, whether in official statements, public comments, or "digital comments" in online forums, tends to be based around one or both of the following: First, the claim that the bill would compromise the separation between church and state by providing a defense for those who introduce creationism into the classroom. Secondly, the related claims that evolution is practically universally accepted as a scientific fact, alternatives are only found outside the mainstream, and the evolution but not alternatives are based on empirical evidence.

These claims are relatively powerless against the bill. First of all, the need to maintain a separation between church and state is explicitly mentioned in the bill. This ensures that efforts to block the bill cannot be made on that basis. Consequently, the ACLU has stated that it will use confederates in the TN school system to monitor classroom activities, and build its case on evidence that these activities are compromising the separation b/t church and state.

The second claim (that evolution is a better theory and accepted scientific fact) connects to the most interesting part of this whole issue. Any reasonable person would not disagree with these claims about evolution. However, to use these claims as the basis of an argument against the bill, or its effects is unfortunately an exercise in futility. Arguing that evolution should be taught just because it's widely accepted contradicts innumerable statements of the fundamental tenets and values of scientific practice (e.g., as articulated in curriculum materials). These principles stress the value of questioning existing beliefs or theories, and drawing conclusions based on evidence. Ironically, some of the most high-visibility critics of religion (to say nothing of bringing religion into schools) base their arguments on these value. According to people like Steven Pinker and Richard Dawkins, the ideal person is completely rational, basing his or her decisions on empirically grounded facts.

As this illustrates, the argument that evolution is too well established to be questioned contradicts the basic spirit of science as outlined by many of its most public advocates. As if this weren't enough, this argument also contradicts basic values of freedom--freedom from having to accept a viewpoint one doesn't want to accept, or the freedom to call anything in to question. It's a safe bet to say that no value has been more frequently affirmed in the United States.

This situation is clearly a mess. If I had to sum it up neatly, I'd say that "creationists" (that's what they are after all) are taking advantage of the post-modern epistemological crisis in science. They're using the disputed territory that exists between naive claims about the epistemology of science (as made by Dawkins, Pinker, and others) and the reality of scientific practice and so called "rational thinking" (in which rational knowledge exists on a foundation of beliefs and assumptions about the world) to further their own ends of bringing religion into school. Preventing this from happening requires that those on the "science side" resolve the tension between the naive epistemology of many scientists, and the somewhat messier reality of actual scientific practice. Unfortunately, I think that this will have to involve some kind of very unscientific value judgment about the superiority of science as a way of understanding the world.