The Philadelphia Inquirer
Sunday, December 3, 2000
Page 1B
Faye Flam, Inquirer Staff writer

STATE STANDARDS STIR EVOLUTION-CREATIONISM DEBATE

Proposed guidelines for teaching science in Pa. were praised by experts -
until they were revised to include rival theories.  Next stop: Harrisburg.

------------------------------------------------

Controversial new standards for teaching science in Pennsylvania propose
treating evolution as a theory and presenting alternative theories as part
of the schools' science curriculum.

The draft language, which is expected to go before the state legislature
for approval early next year, has raised alarms among some scientists and
education groups who worry that the new standards would give legitimacy to
teaching creationist views.

Pennsylvania, one of the last states still working to create standards for
teaching science, had gotten good reviews from scientists and educators
alike for an earlier draft.  But in July, the state Board of Education
inserted several changes.

The additions that have raised concerns include statements that teachers
"analyze the impact of new scientific facts on the theory of evolution"
and present theories that "do or do not support the theory of evolution."

"It's code," said Molleen Matsumura of the National Center for Science
Education, a non-profit group in Berkeley Calif., that defends teaching
evolution.

Of the vague references to other theories, she said, "There are people
waiting in the wings to help teachers do that - people promoting books on
creation science and its close relative, "intelligent design."

Teachers who want to teach creationism may also feel they have a green
light, she said.

State Rep. Samuel Rhorer (R., Berks) said he had opposed the previous
draft of the standards because they promoted "just one theory of origins"
to the exclusion of creation.

"I'm not a scientist," he said, "but I've done enough reading to know that
the whole concept of natural selection and evolution is not science.  It's
not repeatable.  It's a theory.  You can talk about chemistry, physics -
those things are all a matter of fact.

"Evolution is a religious tenet - it's a tenet of secular humanism, and of
Marxism and Communism."

Education officials deny that the changes made in July were inserted to
placate creationists.  "For the first time, we've mandated the teaching of
evolution in Pennsylvania classrooms," State Secretary of Education Eugene
Hickok said.

"The language in the latest draft of the academic standards does not
promote
the teaching of creationism," said James Gallagher, chairman of the state
Board of Education.  "The standards do, however, give clear guidance to
teachers to initiate intellectually stimulating dialogue about the
scientific theory of evolution."

Gallagher declined to specify whether he meant dialogue about some details
of evolution or about its legitimacy.  In the world of science, a debate
on the legitimacy of evolution would not be considered intellectually
stimulating.

It's like debating the theory of gravity, or the atomic theory," said
Andrew Petto, an evolutionary biologist who teaches at the University of
the Arts in Philadelphia and who is a member of the National Council for
Science Education.

Evolution/creation battles have surfaced in several states - including
Illinois, Alabama, New Mexico, and Kentucky - that left evolution out of
science standards or suggested teaching alternative views.  Kansas went
the farthest by taking questions about evolution off the test that
students must take to graduate.

Regarding Pennsylvania, Petto said, "I'm pleased to say this is nowhere
near as bad as what they did in Kansas.  We still have fairly good science
education standards.

Mainstream scientists regard the concept of evolution as established
science. It explains how all living things developed from earlier life forms
through such processes as mutation and natural selection, commonly known as
"survival of the fittest."

Evolution now provides the framework within which nearly all biologists
and medical researchers work.

Creation science teaches a literal interpretation of the biblical story of
Genesis.  It challenges all of modern geology and astronomy by claiming
the universe is only a few thousand years old.  "Intelligent design" is a
more general term, referring to the idea that a supernatural being was
required to design living things.

Historically, Pennsylvania school districts have been free to decide how
to teach science.  But the growing standards movement seeks to establish
definitions of what is expected of students and what eventually will be
the basis of statewide testing.

The earlier draft of the standards, the one that received high marks from
scientists, went through a series of public workshops and hearings.

"The standards were refined based on input from people at these hearings,"
said Karl Girton, chair of the Board of Education Council of Basic
Education.

"There were people who spoke on both sides of this issue," he said -
people advocating teaching of evolution as well as strict creationists.  "There
are people who appeared before this committee who had a very strong
religious argument for what should be presented."

The standards could be still be modified before they are approved.

But in their current form, the standards emphasize that evolution is a
theory, implying that it's still under debate in the scientific community.
 "You could say it's only a theory that the Earth revolves around the
sun," said Peter Dodson, a paleontologist at the University of
Pennsylvania and cofounder of the Philadelphia Center for Science and
Religion.

"All science is provisional," Dodson said, but evolution represents
scientists' best understanding of the world.  "We owe our students our
best understanding."

Not that evolution answers every question posed in biology.  Scientist are
still discussing how an arm could evolve into a wing, Petto said, but new
discoveries in genetics are beginning to answer such questions, showing
how small changes in genes could produce big changes in body plan.

For Petto, the concern goes far beyond students' knowledge of one area of
science.  "The thing that's problematic for me is that the new standards
have redefined science - saying that science is limited to observable
aspects of the universe," he said, when in fact much of science involves
logic, inference and indirect observations.

----------------------------------

POWRÓT