News & Record (Greensboro, NC, November 28, 2000, Tuesday, Pg. A1
HEADLINE: N.C. AT TOP IN EVOLUTION EDUCATION; A GREENSBORO EVANGELIST
CALLS THE RANKING A ''DUBIOUS HONOR,'' BUT EDUCATORS; PRAISE THE STATE'S
SCHOOLS FOR TEACHING THE CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT.
BYLINE: BY BRUCE BUCHANAN; Staff Writer
DATELINE: GREENSBORO
Seventy-five years since the Scopes-Monkey Trial, evolution has become
as much a part of middle and high school science as Newton's apple and
the
periodic table of elements. And according to a recent report, no state
does a better job of teaching evolution than North Carolina.
A report by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, a private
education
research organization, praises the state's treatment of evolution.
The report gives North Carolina a perfect score of
100 and ranks the
Tar Heel state as one of two model states, along with California. In
addition, North Carolina's school science standards in general ranked
among the best in the nation, according to the Fordham Foundation.
''North Carolina is one of the lead states
in standards,'' said
Marci Kanstoroom, research director for the Fordham Foundation. ''I'm
not
surprised North Carolina did well (in the report).''
But although evolution - the theory that life on
earth has changed
gradually over many millions of years - is accepted by scientists,
it
still can be a sensitive subject for some religious groups who say
evolution undermines biblical accounts of creation.
The Rev. Alex McFarland, a Greensboro evangelist,
said North
Carolina's lofty status in the Fordham Foundation report is ''a rather
dubious honor.''
Unlike some other states, North Carolina public schools
teach
evolution in clear and unequivocal terms.
North Carolina requires the teaching of evolutionary
theory in
eighth-grade science and high school biology. Sue Metz, an eighth-grade
science teacher at Aycock Middle School in Greensboro, said the state's
science standards pull no punches on evolution.
This includes diagrams in state textbooks that show
the similarities
between human, ape, chicken and fish fetuses. Metz said confronting
facts
like these can be ''a big monster'' for some students.
''Every year, someone says, 'I ain't no monkey,'
'' she said. ''We're
not saying that. We're just showing the similarities, and these
similarities suggest there is a common ancestor.''
Metz and Kanstoroom agree that evolution has to be
part of a complete
science curriculum. Without it, Kanstoroom said a science curriculum
is
just a disjointed set of facts without anything to hold them together.
However, Metz, a Methodist herself, said evolution
isn't meant to
replace anyone's religious beliefs about how life was created or why
life
exists.
Most parents understand this, she said, but in seven
years of teaching
eighth-grade science, two students have refused to answer essay questions
on evolution because of their religious beliefs.
''None of us ever make an attempt to change anyone's
faith. I'm not
going to get between a student and their parents or church,'' she said.
But in other states, evolution and politics are far
more intertwined
and teachers are limited in what they can say and teach.
About half of the states received an A or B in the
Fordham Foundation
report. However, 12 states, including neighboring Georgia and Tennessee,
received F's.
''A bunch of states have done a really lousy job
in handling
evolution,'' Kanstoroom said.
Kansas was singled out for disdain, receiving an ''F-''.
Last year, Kansas Board of Education officials voted 6-4 to delete any
references to evolution from state textbooks. The state quickly turned
into a national battleground for teaching evolution in public schools.
Candidates for the state school board, who normally
spend only a few
hundred dollars on the campaign, raised tens of thousands of dollars,
much
of it from out-of-state.
Three of the board members who voted for the new
standards lost their
seats this year and only one evolution opponent who ran for re-election
kept his seat. The new board is expected to restore evolution in
classrooms next year.
In Kansas, the push to eliminate evolution came from
supporters of
creationism: a religious-based alternative theory.
Creationism, or creation science, argues that modern
species did not
evolve from more primitive life forms. Instead, creationism holds that
these species, including humans, were created by God and are unchanged
from that original form.
Creationists, like the Rev. McFarland, say their
approach should be
presented in schools as a scientific alternative to evolution.
McFarland said he doesn't mind evolution being taught
in the schools,
as long as creationism is presented as an equally plausible explanation
for the origin of modern species.
''Creationism and evolution could both be described
as religious
beliefs, because they're both accepted on faith,'' he said.
''Evolutionists have their glasses they see the world through, too.''
McFarland said life is too complex to have developed
at random. He
said a designer, namely God, has to be at the helm of such an intricate
system.
Some clergy members agree, but believe evolution
is God's mechanism
for developing life. McFarland said he's seen no evidence, either
scientific or Biblical, of that being the case.
''If theistic evolution was true, you'd have to heavily
massage the
text (of the Bible) to make it fit the conjecture of man,'' he said.
However, most scientists dismiss creationism, saying
it is religious
doctrine in a flimsy disguise.
The National Academy of Sciences, a professional
organization for
scientists, says creationism has no place in a science classroom. It
also
disagrees with McFarland's assertion that evolution has no factual
backing.
The academy outlines its views in the article ''Science
and
Creationism: A view from the National Academy of Sciences'' and says
evolution alone should be taught.
''The theory of evolution has become the central
unifying concept in
biology and is a critical component of many related scientific
disciplines,'' the article states. ''Creation science is not science
and
should not be presented in science classrooms.''
To date, the courts have agreed.
In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled states could not require schools
to teach creationism as an alternative view. The court said creationism
was theology, not science, and therefore violated the separation of
church
and state.
The pro-evolution side actually lost the most famous
evolution-in-schools court case.
In 1925, Tennessee biology teacher John Scopes was
found guilty of
teaching evolution in his classes, which violated state law at the
time.
However, Scopes' attorney, Clarence Darrow, was able to rally public
support for Scopes and the teaching of evolution.
The so-called ''Scopes-Monkey Trial'' eventually
pried the door open
for evolution to be taught in the public schools.
Contact Bruce Buchanan at 373-7078 or bbuchanan@news-record.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
Following is a letter I sent to the author of the News and Record article
on the Fordham Foundation s ranking of NC as 100 % when it comes to
evolution.
Timothy G. Standish, Ph. D.
Associate Professor of Biology
Andrews University
http://www.biol.andrews.edu
------ Forwarded Message
From: Timothy G. Standish <standish@andrews.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:09:33 -0500
To: <bbuchanan@news-record.com>
Subject: N.C. AT TOP IN EVOLUTION EDUCATION
Dear Mr. Buchanan,
I just read with some interest your article in yesterday s News and
Record. North Carolina is to be commended for doing a good job
teaching
science, but one has to wonder at how good the science education can
be
when those teaching evolution are as ignorant of the facts
as Sue Metz
appears to be when you quoted her statement on similarities between
human, ape, chicken and fish fetuses.
Similarities between embryos (not quite the same thing as fetuses) as
evidence of common descent was an idea put forward by Ernst Haeckel,
an
eminent German proponent and contemporary of Darwin. Haeckel
s drawings
of embryos have since been shown to be wildly inaccurate and possibly
fraudulent. This accusation has not come from crazed fundamentalist
creationists, but the most prestigious scientific journal in the United
States, Science. I encourage you to look at Pennisi s1997 Science
article
Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered (Science 227:1435).
Harvard
professor Stephen J. Gould, probably the best known apologist for
evolution in the United States, has also written about Haeckel s apparent
fraud. There is an excellent web page showing the difference
between
Haekel s drawings, which are commonly still reproduced in text books,
and
actual photographs of embryos at <http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/evo5.html>.
I was also dismayed to see that you have not looked at the Kansas State
Education Standards which you referred to in your article when you
said,
Last year, Kansas Board of Education officials voted 6-4 to delete
any
references to evolution from state textbooks. This is simply
untrue.
Following are three instances where evolution is mentioned in the Kansas
Science Standards:
Under Teaching with Tolerence and Respect the standards state:
Some scientific concepts and theories (e.g. blood transfusion,
human
sexuality, nervous system role in consciousness, cosmological and
biological evolution, etc.) may conflict with a student s religious
or
cultural beliefs. The goal is to enhance understanding, and a science
teacher has a responsibility to enhance students understanding
of
scientific concepts and theories.
This is a clear instruction to teach evolution along with other
potentially controversial scientific theories. A couple of other
examples
from the science standards are:
Benchmark 5: The students will observe the diversity of living
things and
relate their adaptations to their survival or extinction.
Millions of species of microorganisms, animals, and plants are alive
today. Animals and plants vary in body plans and internal structures.
Over
time, genetic variation acted upon by natural selection has brought
variations in populations. This is termed microevolution. A structural
characteristic or behavior that helps an organism survive and reproduce
in
its environment is called an adaptation. When the environment changes
and
the adaptive characteristics or behaviors are insufficient, the species
becomes extinct.
Instruction needs to be designed to uncover and prevent misconceptions
about natural selection. Natural selection can maintain or deplete
genetic
variation but does not add new information to the existing genetic
code.
Using examples of microevolution, such as Darwin s finches or the peppered
moths of Manchester, helps develop understanding of natural selection.
Examining fossil evidence assists the student s understanding of
extinction as a natural process that has affected Earth s species.
STANDARD 3: LIFE SCIENCE
Experiences in grades 9-12 will allow all students to develop an
understanding of the structure and function of the cell, the molecular
basis of inheritance, biological evolution, interdependence and behavior
of living things; and organization of living systems and uses of matter.
There are other significant mentions of evolution. I m not sure that
I see
any removal of evolution from the Science Standards in Kansas.
The only
people who could possibly be thinking this are journalists who seem
to be
repeating what other journalists have mistakenly said about the standards.
I encourage you to take a look at the standards yourself. They
are
readily available on the web at the Kansas State Department of Education
page <http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/>.
As a responsible journalist in the state of North Carolina I encourage
you
to set the record straight. The Fordham Foundation s ranking
of North
Carolina as tops in evolution education is unlikely to impress anyone
unless students and citizens in North Carolina actually do understand
the
basic facts. Your excellent article, aside from the slip up about
the
Kansas State Science Standards, makes it painfully clear to me that
the
very people who are supposed to teach evolution in that state are
embarrassingly muddled and behind the times when it comes to their
facts.
Best wishes,
Tim Standish
--
Timothy G. Standish, Ph. D.
Associate Professor of Biology
Andrews University
http://www.biol.andrews.edu