Should Evolution Be Taught As Fact?

Jeff Poling

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio:

Section 1. That section 3313.608 of the Revised Code be enacted to read as follows:

Sec. 3313.608. Whenever a theory of the origin of humans, other living things, or the universe that might commonly be referred to as "evolution" is included in the instructional program provided by any school district or educational service center, both evidence and arguments supporting or consistent with the theory and evidence and arguments problematic for, inconsistent with, or not supporting the theory shall be included.

The above paragraph is the text of O.H.R. No. 692 of the 121st General Assembly, Regular Session 1996, State of Ohio. The bill, which died in committee, is an example of bills that are now introduced with regularity in state governments throughout the United States. Although worded differently, with more or fewer provisions, these bills, if passed, would legislate that evolution not be taught as fact in the states' public school systems.

Should evolution be taught not as fact, but as theory? Before that question can be answered, it must be established what fact and theory are.

FACT It is very difficult to define exactly what a fact is. Many popular dictionaries try very hard to define a fact, and most still get it wrong. Arthur Strahler, in his book Understanding Science, defines a statement of fact as

"an observation statement accepted pragmatically and operationally as being true (a) because to substitute a predicate of opposite meaning would be absurd (would violate common sense) and (b) because the statement is subject to verification by many observers and by mechanical means of documentation, with no expressed alternative statements (i.e., no dissent)."

This is a convoluted way of defining a fact as something that is readily observable and measurable, will always be seen the same way and produce the same measurements regardless of the person taking the observations (taking into account the physical limitations of the observer, such as color blindness), and for which there is no possible alternative statement. Some examples of facts are:

• The apple is red.
• A major earthquake struck Los Angeles on April 7, 1962.
• Dinosaur femur A is 5 feet long.
• Dinosaur femur B is 6 feet long.

Facts merely tell us what is. They do not tell us why that fact is, what the fact means, or how the fact came to be. Why is this dinosaur femur one foot longer than the other dinosaur femur, and what does it mean? How did one femur get to be larger than the other? When one tries to explain why or how, or to discern meaning, one enters the realm of science. Possible answers of why, how and what does it mean must conform to the levels of scientific understanding, below.

SPECULATION A speculation is a preliminary explanation of a fact, with little or no testing to verify or disprove the idea. It is very specific to that fact, and no attempt is made to apply it to anything outside that fact. A person might speculate that the reason femur B is longer than femur A is because dinosaur B changed through time from dinosaur A.

HYPOTHESIS A hypothesis is an explanation with some evidence and testing behind it. Once a speculation has been formed, the person must attempt to verify it through experimentation and observation. To test a speculation, one may observe other, similar facts. To test the speculation that B evolved a longer femur than its ancestor, a person might first experiment to determine whether B is the ancestor of A, such as determining whether B is a species similar to A, and whether the same or similar characteristics can be found in other species closely related to A and B. Note that the person checks other information; what the person finds may not be a fact but another hypothesis. That the similarity between B and A is due to ancestry, for example, may be open to interpretation. A very important point is that not only can this experimentation and observation support the speculation, it may disprove it. This is key to science: any speculation, hypothesis or higher level of understanding must not only be supportable, it must also be disprovable. Finding that B was not closely related to A would disprove the speculation the dinosaur B changed through time from dinosaur A. Once data has been gathered, observations have been made and alternate speculations explored that support the speculation, and attempts have been made to gather data, make observations and explore alternate speculations that would disprove the original speculation, yet did not, the speculation becomes a hypothesis. The hypothesis has a narrow focus, yet applies to a broader range of facts. The hypothesis that evolution occurred not only applies to the two individual dinosaurs in question, but also any dinosaurs of those two species, and any dinosaurs of similar species.

THEORY A theory is an explanation with a large amount of evidence and testing behind it. The person trying to support his hypothesis of evolution would continue to make observations and experiment. Does the observed data occur in many, many femur specimens? Does it also occur in other, unrelated species of dinosaur as well as those related to the specimens in question? Again, experimentation, observation and alternate speculations/hypotheses must be made that both support and can disprove the hypothesis must be made. Often, other experimenters and researchers will also have gone through this process. A theory has a broader application than a hypothesis, explaining many different facts. The theory that evolution occurs now not only applies to dinosaurs A and B, their species, and closely related species, but all dinosaurs.

PRINCIPLE OR LAW A principle or law is an explanation with a great amount of supporting evidence, and has been tested thoroughly with input and scrutiny by others. The person trying to support his theory of evolution will have created many new experiments to test and retest the theory, and will have applied them to many more facts than just those of the two observed femurs. The person will now not only have made observations of dinosaurs, but of mammals, lizards, fish, trees and any other living thing. His theory of evolution will have been applied, through the usual process of experimentation, observation and alternate speculation/hypotheses/theories, to facts pertaining to many, many living things, and been verified by many, many people. The principle or law that evolution occurs now not only applies to dinosaurs A and B, their species, closely related species and dinosaurs, but all living things.

In summary, a fact is something that is an observation of a specific item that is the same regardless of the observer, and for which there is no alternative observation. Speculation is an explanation of why a certain fact should exist, or how it should have come to be, or what the implications of the fact are, for the specific item in question. A hypothesis is an explanation, applying to the original item and closely related items, for which some supporting data exists, experimentation has been done, and for which alternate hypotheses or speculations that would disprove the hypothesis have been created, and possibly tested and rejected. A theory is an explanation, applying to many items, not necessarily closely related, for which much data exists, a lot of experiments have been done, and for which alternative hypotheses have been formed and possibly tested and rejected. A principle or law, applying universally to everything, or nearly so, is one for which a huge amount of data exists, many experiments have been done, and for which few, if any, alternative or disproving theories, hypothesis or speculation exist (but may yet be found).

In terms of the specific topic of evolution, that animals are different in the fossil record, and change through layers of rock, are facts. That evolution has occurred is a principle. The types of evolution, such as gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, are theories, and the mechanisms of evolution, such as natural selection, are between theory and principles. Evolution in all its constituent principles, theories, hypothesis and speculations, is an explanation of why the animals differ through the fossil record, of how they came to differ, and of the meaning of the change through the fossil record.

Because evolution is an explanation of facts, it must fit into the guidelines for scientific understanding set out above. Therefore, the answer to the question "should evolution be taught as fact" is, obviously, no.

But is legislation requiring that evolution be taught properly as principle and theory necessary? Why are such laws being introduced?

The following letters to the editor of The Columbus Dispatch attempt to explain the purpose of such legislation:

Rep. Ron Hood, sponsor of O.H.R. Bill 692, Saturday, June 15, 1996

I address the misconceptions that have appeared in the media recently concerning Ohio House Bill 692, legislation that seeks nothing more than to ensure that pupils in our schools learn the whole truth about evolution.

The only fact here is that many people have completely and intentionally distorted the content of this bill.

For those who have it right, please bear with my extended explanation of the one-paragraph piece of legislation. The bill states the following:

[bill text deleted, shown at top of this page]

Information, such as the lack of a transitional-species fossil record, which Charles Darwin himself declared to be a substantive problem for his theory, is an example of what could be included.

I will quote an individual who, I am certain, would agree with the intent of Substitute House Bill 692.

"Education, you know, means broadening, advancing . . . I believe in teaching every aspect of every problem or theory," stated John Scopes during the trial years ago [Scopes was on trial for teaching evolution in school -- ed.]

As Scopes fought for his right to teach as he pleased, today I am fighting for the rights of pupils to be taught the truth, the whole story, about evolution.

There is no empirical proof as to how the Earth and its inhabitants came to be, and pupils should be provided with this information. Let them decide what they believe for themselves.

To educate means to provide with knowledge, to stimulate mental growth. It is not an educator's job, nor mine, to tell a pupil what to think, only to encourage him to think.

George Detweiler, Creation Research-Science Education Foundation, Saturday, June 15, 1996

House bill 692, awaiting a vote in the Ohio House Education Committee, is a bill that everyone can support.

It resolves a problem that many of us science teachers in public schools have wrestled with for many years: how to teach theories on the origins of life and the universe while avoiding offending parents and pupils alike and, yet, maintaining educational honesty.

House bill 692 (Section 3313.608) says simply, the following:

[bill text deleted, shown at top of this page]

The high school where I taught for 23 years did not interfere with my approach, which was identical to the above.

I used my own experiences as a geologist and life science teacher to encourage pupils to do their own critical thinking and research.

Such an approach has many benefits:

• It encourages pupils to think critically by providing pertinent information for and against evolution.

• By using this inquiry approach, the pupils see that science -- at least on the subject of origins -- is open to more scientific research.

• The openness encourages more pupils to enter science.

• It demonstrates to pupils how a theory can be openly tested, thus eliminating the indoctrination commonly practiced.

• It frees science teachers from the onus of indoctrinating the pupils on the theory of evolution. The teachers will now have to search for alternative evidences and encourage their pupils to do likewise.

• It encourages both teachers and pupils to collect, organize, analyze and interpret data.

As a teacher who has had the satisfaction of teaching the subject of origins in an open manner, I urge that parents, teachers and House members support this bill, just as did the pupils who appeared before the Education Committee.

The reasons for the legislation expressed in these letters seem reasonable. Their goal, after all, is to ensure the teaching of the tenets of science expressed at the beginning of this essay. However, close scrutiny exposes serious flaws in their reasoning.

The letters state that evolution is not being taught within the rules of scientific understanding. If evolution is not being taught properly, then what about other areas of science? I find it very hard to believe that other areas of science would be taught properly while evolution is taught improperly. Either all areas of science are being taught improperly, or there is a conspiracy to force evolution upon the populace.

If all areas of science are being taught improperly, why are legislators and their supporters focusing only on evolution? They should be drafting laws to properly teach all science, not just evolution.

Is there, then, a conspiracy of indoctrination? Mr. Detweiler certainly believes so. However, I cannot see how this could be achieved. If all other areas of science are being taught properly, students are learning that science is questioning, seeking, gathering and experimenting. They would naturally apply this to evolution. I cannot see them taking evolution as fact unquestioningly when they are constantly exposed to the scientific method in other areas of science.

So is legislation requiring that evolution be taught properly as principle and theory necessary? As with whether evolution should be taught as fact, the answer is no. Either no science is being taught properly and legislation mandating all science be taught properly is needed, or no legislation is needed at all either because evolution is already being taught properly or because indoctrination, if any indoctrination is going on at all, does not work in an atmosphere where the rest of science is already taught properly.

So what is really behind bills such as O.H.R. 691?

Ignorance of what is really going on in the science classroom is certainly a possibility. The legislators and their supporters may not understand what science is and therefore may not realize that evolution is being taught properly. Another explananation may be that they may not have visited the classrooms themselves and may not be aware that evolution is being taught properly. With either of these explanations come the questions discussed above about why they would single out evolution and not address science education in general.

The real reason, in my opinion, why such bills are being introduced is made quite clear in the following letter:

Jim Baldwin, Sunday, June 16, 1996

I respond to Anita M. Waters (letter to the editor, June 6) concerning House Bill 692, which would allow for the teaching of "creation science" in the public schools.

I am a fundamentalist Christian, and I couldn't disagree more with Waters, because abandoning God's principles, which He has laid down for us in the Bible, is the direct cause of the moral decay that we have seen over the last few decades.

Now, more than ever, we should be instructing our children that they are created by God, along with his wondrous universe.

Instead, we are teaching that the world formed by chance with just the right mixture of oxygen and water to sustain life, just the right distance from the sun. Just a fluke, right? I don't think so.

No wonder many children these days have no concept of right and wrong. They're being taught that they are merely the offspring of amoebas and apes.

Sure, man has made tremendous technological advances over the years, but we are still the same, sinful, rebellious creatures whose only hope for eternal salvation is in the merciful sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross.