Teach the controversy

WHAT SHOULD public schools teach about life's origins? Should science educators teach only contemporary Darwinian theory or not mention it? Should school boards mandate that students learn about alternative theories? If so, which ones? Or should schools forbid discussion of all theories except neo-Darwinism?

These questions arise frequently as school districts around the country consider how to respond to the growing controversy over biological origins.

Of course, many educators wish such controversies would simply go away. If science teachers teach only Darwinian evolution, many parents and religious activists will protest. But if teachers present religiously based creationism, they run afoul of Supreme Court rulings.

There is a way to teach evolution that would benefit students and satisfy all but the most extreme ideologues. Rather than ignoring the controversy or teaching religiously based ideas, teachers should teach about the scientific controversy that now exists over Darwinian evolution. This is simply good education.

When credible experts disagree about a controversial subject, students should learn about competing perspectives.

In such cases, teachers should not teach as true only one view. Instead, teachers should describe competing views to students and explain the arguments for and against these views as made by their chief proponents. We call this "teaching the controversy."

There are several significant scientific controversies about key aspects of evolutionary theory.

First, some scientists doubt the idea that all organisms have evolved from a single common ancestor. Fossil studies reveal "a biological big bang" near the beginning of the Cambrian period (530 million years ago) when many major, separate groups of organisms, or phyla - including most animal body plans - emerged suddenly without clear precursors. Fossil finds repeatedly have confirmed a pattern of explosive appearance and prolonged stability in living forms - not the gradual "branching-tree" pattern implied by Charles Darwin's common-ancestry thesis.

Other scientists doubt the creative power of the Darwinian mechanism. While many scientists accept that natural selection can produce small-scale "micro-evolutionary" variations, many biologists now doubt that natural selection and random mutations can generate the large-scale changes necessary to produce fundamentally new structures and forms of life.

More than 375 scientists, including researchers from institutions such as MIT, Yale, Rice and the Smithsonian, have signed a statement questioning the creative power of the selection/mutation mechanism.

Finally, some scientists doubt the Darwinian idea that living things merely "appear" designed. Instead, they think that living systems display telltale signs of actual or "intelligent" design. Prominent scientists, such as Lehigh University biochemist Michael J. Behe and former San Francisco State University biophysicist Dean Kenyon, have cited intriguing evidence in support of this theory, such as the presence of digital information, complex circuits and miniature motors in living cells.

Since intelligent design is a new theory of biological origins, students should not be required to learn about it. But they should learn about the scientific strengths and weaknesses of orthodox Darwinism. Clearly, teachers should also be free to tell their students about alternative new theories such as Mr. Behe's design theory, provided these theories are based (as Mr. Behe's is) upon scientific evidence, not scriptural texts.

There are many reasons to adopt this "teach the controversy" approach.

First, constitutional law permits it. In the controlling Edwards vs. Aguillard case, the Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that it is permissible to teach students about both alternative scientific theories of origins and scientific criticism of prevailing theories.

Second, federal education policy calls for it. The authoritative report language accompanying the No Child Left Behind law states that "where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of views that exist."

Third, four polls from 2001 to 2004 show that more than 70 percent of the electorate favors teaching both the evidence for and against Darwin's theory of evolution.

Finally, teaching scientific controversies engages student interest and encourages them to do what scientists must do - deliberate about how best to interpret evidence. As Darwin wrote in Origin of Species, "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question."

Stephen C. Meyer, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, and John Angus Campbell, a professor of communications at the University of Memphis, are the editors of Darwinism, Design and Public Education.

Copyright © 2005, The Baltimore Sun