Teach the Controversy

Discovery Institute

The Teach the Controversy movement in the United States, as described by its advocates, proposes an education policy for US public schools that involves presenting to students all the relevant scientific evidence concerning the theory of evolution, as well as the continuing debates within the scientific community, and then encouraging students to evaluate the evidence and controversies themselves. The term was coined by Phillip E. Johnson of the Discovery Institute, but the policy has been explicitly endorsed and promoted by other creationist organizations, including Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, Leadership University [1], Renew America [2] and BreakPoint [3]. Proponents believe that there is evidence against evolution that is not taught in schools, and seek political and legal intervention to ensure that it is, and that students are encouraged to evaluate it critically.

Opponents, in the form of the mainstream scientific organizations, have asserted that there is no controversy to teach. They point to the fact that evolution is widely accepted within the scientific community. They argue that to describe the continuing debates as to the details of evolutionary mechanisms as a "controversy" is to mischaracterize the nature and significance of the discussions. Another common objection to the Teach the Controversy policy is that the actual goal of many Teach the Controversy proponents is the return of the teaching of creationism to the public school classroom, now in the guise of intelligent design, which proponents contend is non-theological. In support, the critics point to numerous quotations from principal Teach the Controversy proponents, including its originator, that they believe just that.

Overview

The term "teach the controversy" was coined by Phillip E. Johnson in 2000 in his book "The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism", while opining on the 1999-2000 Kansas State Board of Education controversy over the teaching of intelligent design in public school classrooms. Johnson wrote [4]:

"What educators in Kansas and elsewhere should be doing is to "teach the controversy."

The term evolved into a political action strategy and movement with the impetus of members of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, of which law professor Phillip E. Johnson is a member [5]. The Discovery Institute and it's Center for Science and Culture is a Seattle-based Christian organization.[6] Johnson is also one of the founders of the intelligent design movement and author of the wedge strategy [7], and serves as a Discovery Institute program advisor.

While there is a variety of views within the movement, Discovery Institute states it and Johnson do not believe that teaching intelligent design should be required, but that evidence for and against evolution should be presented fairly. The Discovery Institute web site states the following:

"Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute recommends that states and school districts focus on teaching students more about evolutionary theory, including telling them about some of the theory's problems that have been discussed in peer-reviewed science journals. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned. We believe this is a common-sense approach that will benefit students, teachers, and parents". [8]

The stated goal of the wedge strategy, [9] is to conduct research toward the goal of developing coherent theories of origins that are superior to evolution and its materialistic understandings and consistent with theistic understanding, toward the ultimate goals of:

• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

The Wedge document discusses at length the means of achieving these goals, which are scientific research, writing, publishing, conferences, seminars, speaking appearances, debates, media appearances and other public square activities. The Wedge document does not discuss the Teach the Controversy policy or any other educational policy for teaching in public schools. The document refers to an intention to "pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula", but only after "our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory".

Proponents distinguish their goals for advocacy in the public sphere through books, articles, and public speaking from their goals for public education, which must comply with the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution. They have stated clearly that they no longer favor including either creationism or the Bible in biology textbooks or science classes. [10]

Critics have responded by pointing out that the goals of the wedge and Teach the Controversy for each forum are one and the same, and that Johnson has spoken publicly many times in favor of "the truth of the Bible" over that of secular science and materialism. Critics also allege that the proponent's compliance with the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution has the net effect of giving the teaching of creationism immunity from First Amendment challenges by adopting the putatively theologically neutral stance of intelligent design. They note that this is parallel to and consistant with the creationist agenda of creationist fundamentist Christians, which comprise much of the support for intelligent design.

The movement has been widely criticized by the the scientific establishment, and specifically the most significant organization in the American scientific establishment, the National Academies of Science. Much of the criticism points to the connections with the Intelligent Design movement and suggests that "teach the controversy" advocacy is a ploy to inject teaching about Intelligent Design or Creationism in schools.

Political Action

In 2001, as a result of lobbying by the Discovery Institute and others, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution in support of curricula intended to help students understand the full range of scientific views. [11] The United States Congress then passed legislation that included the language below, known as the Santorum Amendment in the Conference Report, which provides guidance from Congress as to how the legislation should be implemented. However, what does it mean to interpret a nonbinding recommendation that was removed before the bill became law?

"The Conferees recognize that a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society".

The Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference is not part of the law as enacted and does not require educators to change the way they teach evolution [12]. The final language reflects a revised version of the language originally proposed by Rick Santorum. Some have asserted that the final language watered down the original language, but this has been disputed.

On March 11, 2002 during a panel discussion on evolution, the Discovery Institutes's Stephen Meyer publicly told the Ohio Board of Education that the "Santorum Amendment" was part of the Education Bill, and therefore that the State of Ohio was obligated to teach alternative theories to evolution as part of its biology curriculum. A Brown University Professor of Biology, Kenneth R. Miller, using the actual text of the law, showed that Stephen Meyer's statement was false and that the Santorum Amendment is not in the Education Bill. [13] Meyer and others pointed out that the language is in the Conference Report to the bill, and have pointed out what they believe are numerous misrepresentations by Miller.[14] Since Conference Reports do not carry the weight of law, Meyer factually mistated the nature and gravitas of the Santorum Amendment. [15]

The response of mainstream scientists to the efforts to promote "teaching the controversy" has been unequivocal. The leaders of eighty scientific and educational organizations responded to the Conference Report, which cites biological evolution as an example of a topic that may generate controversy:

"As written, the apparently innocuous statements in this resolution mask an anti-evolution agenda that repeatedly has been rejected by the courts. The resolution singles out biological evolution as a controversial subject but is deliberately ambiguous about the nature of the controversy. Evolutionary theory ranks with Einstein's theory of relativity as one of modern science's most robust, generally accepted, thoroughly tested and broadly applicable concepts. From the standpoint of science, there is no controversy. If the point of the resolution is to encourage teaching about political controversy surrounding scientific topics, then evolution is just one of a legion of issues that are the subject of political debate. It should not be singled out. Confusing political with scientific controversy on the topic of biological evolution will weaken science education". [16]

Proponents note that the response seems directed not at the actual pedagogical policy, but rather the belief the it "masks an anti-evolution agenda" despite the "apparently innocuous statements". They assert that this is another example of arguing against a straw man rather than addressing the actual policy.

In December 2002, the Ohio State Board of Education adopted science standards that require Ohio students to study why "scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory". [17] Earlier polls showed widespread popular support in Ohio for such a policy. [18] In 2004, Ohio published a model lesson plan for the "Critical Analysis of Evolution". [19] The plan has been opposed by the National Academy of Sciences and the Ohio Academy of Sciences [20].

The Board also advised that the science standards do "not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design" [21]

Philosophical Basis

In an article in the Wall Street Journal, Phillip E. Johnson set forth part of the philosophical basis for the teaching policy. He made the following observations about public education, the definition of science, and the scientific establishment:

"The root of the problem is that "science" has two distinct definitions in our culture. On the one hand, science refers to a method of investigation involving things like careful measurements, repeatable experiments, and especially a skeptical, open-minded attitude that insists that all claims be carefully tested. Science also has become identified with a philosophy known as materialism or scientific naturalism. This philosophy insists that nature is all there is, or at least the only thing about which we can have any knowledge. . . . Students are not supposed to approach this philosophy with open-minded skepticism, but to believe it on faith...." [22]

He notes that science and science education are not always driven by a priori philosophical and religious neutrality:

"All the most prominent Darwinists proclaim naturalistic philosophy when they think it safe to do so. Carl Sagan had nothing but contempt for those who deny that humans and all other species "arose by blind physical and chemical forces over eons from slime." Richard Dawkins exults that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist," and Richard Lewontin has written that scientists must stick to philosophical materialism regardless of the evidence, because we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door...." [23]

In the same article he went on to explain how this relates to public education. He notes how science education might be improved by adopting a teach the controversy policy and methodology:

"If the Academy meant to teach scientific investigation, rather than to inculcate a belief system, it would encourage students to think about why, if natural selection has been continuously active in creating, the observed examples involve very limited back-and-forth variation that doesn't seem to be going anywhere. But skepticism of that kind might spread and threaten the whole system of naturalistic belief. Why is the fossil record overall so difficult to reconcile with the steady process of gradual transformation predicted by the neo-Darwinian theory? How would the theory fare if we did not assume at the start that nature had to do its own creating, so a naturalistic creation mechanism simply has to exist regardless of the evidence? These are the kinds of questions the Darwinists don't want to encourage students to ask...."

"This doesn't mean that students in Kansas or elsewhere shouldn't be taught about evolution. In context, the Kansas action was a protest against enshrining a particular worldview as a scientific fact and against making "evolution" an exception to the usual American tradition that the people have a right to disagree with the experts. Take evolution away from the worldview promoters and return it to the real scientific investigators, and a chronic social conflict will become an exciting intellectual adventure."[24]

A clear example of the religious roots of Johnson's philosophical bias is apparent when Johnson told an assembly at a fundamentalist Christian conference entitled, Reclaiming America For Christ:

"The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to the truth of the Bible and then the question of sin and finally introduced to Jesus." [25]

In speaking to the audience of the Christian media group and church, Coral Ridge Ministries, [26], Johnson expanded on his goal and method of expanding religion's role in public education:

"In summary, we have to educate our young people; we have to give them the armor they need. We have to think about how we're going on the offensive rather than staying on the defensive. And above all, we have to come out to the culture with the view that we are the ones who really stand for freedom of thought. You see, we don't have to fear freedom of thought because good thinking done in the right way will eventually lead back to the Church, to the truth-the truth that sets people free, even if it goes through a couple of detours on the way. And so we're the ones that stand for good science, objective reasoning, assumptions on the table, a high level of education, and freedom of conscience to think as we are capable of thinking. That's what America stands for, and that's something we stand for, and that's something the Christian Church and the Christian Gospel stand for-the truth that makes you free. Let's recapture that, while we're recapturing America." [27]

When speaking to the same audience on a different occasion, Johnson said the following:

"What I am not doing is bringing the Bible into the university and saying, "We should believe this." Bringing the Bible into question works very well when you are talking to a Bible-believing audience. But it is a disastrous thing to do when you are talking, as I am constantly, to a world of people for whom the fact that something is in the Bible is a reason for not believing it."

"You see, if they thought they had good evidence for something, and then they saw it in the Bible, they would begin to doubt. That is what has to be kept out of the argument if you are going to do what I to do, which is to focus on the defects in their [the evolutionist's] case—the bad logic, the bad science, the bad reasoning, and the bad evidence." [28]

Criticisms

"Teach the Controversy"

Mainstream scientific organizations maintain that there is no controversy to teach, in the sense that the theory of evolution is fully accepted by the scientific community. Such controversies that do exist concern the details of the mechanisms of evolution, not the validity of the over-arching theory of evolution.

For example the National Association of Biology Teachers made this statement on teaching evolution:

"As stated in The American Biology Teacher by the eminent scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973), 'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.' This often-quoted declaration accurately reflects the central, unifying role of evolution in biology. The theory of evolution provides a framework that explains both the history of life and the ongoing adaptation of organisms to environmental challenges and changes.

While modern biologists constantly study and deliberate the patterns, mechanisms, and pace of evolution, they agree that all living things share common ancestors. The fossil record and the diversity of extant organisms, combined with modern techniques of molecular biology, taxonomy, and geology, provide exhaustive examples of and powerful evidence for current evolutionary theory. Genetic variation, natural selection, speciation, and extinction are well-established components of modern evolutionary theory. Explanations are constantly modified and refined as warranted by new scientific evidence that accumulates over time, which demonstrates the integrity and validity of the field.

Scientists have firmly established evolution as an important natural process. Experimentation, logical analysis, and evidence-based revision are procedures that clearly differentiate and separate science from other ways of knowing. Explanations or ways of knowing that invoke non-naturalistic or supernatural events or beings, whether called 'creation science,' 'scientific creationism,' 'intelligent design theory,' 'young earth theory,' or similar designations, are outside the realm of science and not part of a valid science curriculum.

The selection of topics covered in a biology curriculum should accurately reflect the principles of biological science. Teaching biology in an effective and scientifically honest manner requires that evolution be taught in a standards-based instructional framework with effective classroom discussions and laboratory experiences." [29]

Proponents respond by noting that some of the relevant controversies and evidence are noted by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species, especially in Chapters IV and IX. He stated regarding the Cambrian explosion, "The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained."[30][31][32] Regarding the current debate, the controversies that are proposed can be found in Ohio's model lesson plan, which has numerous references to creationist literature and works by members of the Discovery Institute.[33]. The tactic of implying that the Cambrian explosion is a single event in which complex life forms appear suddenly with no ancestral fossils can be traced back to Henry Morris' Scientific Creationism (1985) and appears most recently in Jonathan Wells' Icons of Evolution.

Phillip E. Johnson

The concept and phrase "teach the controversy" was first presented publicly in Phillip E. Johnson's book "The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism" [34] published in 2000. The "teach the controversy" debate is the thin edge of the "wedge" that Philip Johnson hopes will split the wall between church and state and secure fundamentalist beliefs a captive audience in public schools.

The Discovery Institute

A "teach the controversy" strategy was announced by the Discovery Institute’s Stephen C. Meyer [35] following a presentation to the Ohio State Board of Education in March 2002. The presentation included submission of an annotated bibliography of 44 peer-reviewed scientific articles that were said to raise significant challenges to key tenets of what was referred to as “Darwinian evolution” [36]. In response to this claim the National Center for Science Education, an organisation that works in collaboration with National Academy of Sciences, the National Association of Biology Teachers, and the National Science Teachers Association that support the teaching of evolution in public schools [37], contacted the authors of the papers listed and twenty-six scientists, representing thirty-four of the papers, responded. None of the authors considered that their research provided evidence against evolution [38].

Critics have alleged that the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC) has a hidden agenda: that of giving the teaching of creationism immunity from First Amendment challenges by adopting the putatively theologically neutral stance of intelligent design. They note that in press releases intended for the general public, the CSC describes itself as "the nation's leading think-tank researching scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution." But in press releases for members only, the CSC assures them that it "seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies."

As part of the strategy proponents refer to popular misconceptions on the evidence in favour of evolution by natural selection and alleged factual errors and misrepresentations in current textbooks. The NCSE's extensive review of the main publication to support this claim, Jonathan Wells's Icons of Evolution, found that grave flaws made it "useful at most for those with a certain political and religious agenda, but of little value to educators" [39]. Other analyses have found "that the traditional, mainstream-science-supporting interpretations of these "icons" are correct" [40]. Writing in Nature biologist Jerry Coyne remarked that

"Wells's book rests entirely on a flawed syllogism: hence, textbooks illustrate evolution with examples; these examples are sometimes presented in incorrect or misleading ways; therefore evolution is a fiction. The second premise is not generally true, and even if it were, the conclusion would not follow. To compound the absurdity, Wells concludes that a cabal of evil scientists, "the Darwinian establishment", uses fraud and distortion to buttress the crumbling edifice of evolution. Wells' final chapter urges his readers to lobby the US government to eliminate research funding for evolutionary biology." [41]

Wells thoroughly disagrees with this evaluation and believes that his views and the merits of his assertions have been seriously misrepresented by many who have reviewed his book. He has published a lengthy defense of his book, as well as a defense to the many personal attacks on him.[42] Many scientists have acknowledged the errors in textbooks. Some acknowledge the errors, but believe that they are not a serious problem.[43] Some textbook publishers have recently revised their textbooks to correct the errors. [44] The response of the single publisher named by Wells has been condemned by Steven Schafersman, President of Texas Citizens for Science, who has explained that to eliminate from textbooks the powerful evidence for evolution supplied by research on peppered moths and on the similarity of human embryos to those of other vertebrates "is irresponsible and not worthy of a distinguished publisher of science textbooks" [45] [46].

Wells is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute [47].

Given the history of the Discovery Institute as an organization committed to opposing any scientific theory inconsistent with "the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God" [48] and the tactics outlined above many scientists regard the movement as a ploy to introduce creationism into the science curriculum rather than as a serious attempt to discuss scientific evidence.

Proponents point to the actual policy of the Discovery Institute and the specific implementation of the standards and model teaching plan by the state of Ohio, which belie the claim that the policy is a ploy. [49] They note that critics seem unwilling to recognize that an organization may have certain overarching goals, but adopt an educational policy that does not including requiring that those goals be required of public schools. What is appropriate for publication in books and OpEd articles may not be appropriate for mandatory teaching in public schools. They also contend that such criticisms represent ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments and fail to address the substance of the underlying policy or propose constructive alternatives. However, amidst this political and religious controversy the clear, categorical and oft-repeated advice of senior national and international scientific organizations remains that there is no controversy to teach. This makes it inevitable that in an effort to understand this curious American movement skeptics will examine closely the background, funding and stated motives of those involved.

See also

• Discovery Institute
• Center for Science and Culture
• Intelligent design
• Phillip E. Johnson
• Darwin on Trial
• Bruce Chapman
• Wedge strategy
• Howard Ahmanson, Jr

External links

Pro and con

• Wired magazine article on Intelligent Design movement
• Discovery Institute critique of Wired article and list of alleged misrepresentations
• Wired article: The New Convergence

Pro

• Reprint of Washington Post OpEd piece approving of teaching the controversy
• The Church of Darwin, by Phillip E. Johnson, from The Wall Street Journal
• Discovery Institute's educational position and links
• Discovery Institute's general FAQ about its mission and details on the intelligent design theory
• Discovery Institutes's fact sheet discussing the controversy regarding the Cambrian Explosion
• Discovery Institute's fact sheet discussing the controversy regarding whether microevolution can explain macroevolution
• The "Wedge Document": "So What?" (An explanation by the Discovery Institute)
• The "Wedge" Archives at the Access Research Network website.

Con

• Intelligent Design and that Vast Right-wing Conspiracy
• What's wrong with 'teaching the controversy'?
• The Wedge Strategy Three Years Later
• The Discovery Institute
• Critiques of Anti-Evolutionist Phillip Johnson's Views
• Resolution disparaging ID and ID politics, by the board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
• National Center for Science Education resources on ID
  • "Intelligent Design" Not Accepted by Most Scientists
• Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences by the Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences, addressing the issue of intelligent design in the guise of creationism.
• The "Intelligent Design" of a Monkey Trial: A Case of Hidden Agendas by Bob Weitzel. At the axisoflogic.com website.
• Teach the controversy (Creationism thru the back door) Stephen C. Meyer and John Angus Campbell. originally published at the baltimoresun.com 11 March 2005
• Should We “Teach the Controversy”? Jason Rosenhouse csicop.org (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal)
• State Your Case Chris Mooney. csicop.org (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) 25 October 2004
• Evolution Controversy in Our Schools A letter sent to Academy members by President of the National Academy of Sciences, Bruce Alberts 4 March 2005.

Audio and video

• The BBC's Robert Pigott: Changes to teaching evolution in Ohio
• "Intelligent Design" Rivals Evolution in Ohio High Schools
• Kansas Schools Struggle with Evolution and Creationism
• Ohio State Board of Education proposed new standards for teaching science
• Textbook Battles
• Why the debate over creationism is dividing the USA

There several interrelated articles on Wikipedia about this subject, see: Phillip E. Johnson; Wedge strategy; Darwin on Trial; Icons of Evolution; Santorum Amendment; Discovery Institute; Howard Ahmanson, Jr; Center for Science and Culture; Michael Behe; David Berlinski; William A. Dembski; Stephen C. Meyer; Jonathan Wells; Bruce Chapman; George Gilder