Academic Freedom in the Science Classroom
by Heather D. DeHart
Heatherd_18@hotmail.com
January 5, 2002

On July 10, 1925, a young teacher named John Scopes was put on trial for teaching a chapter out of Hunters, A Civic Biology, called Charles Darwin and Natural Selection to his students in Dayton, Tennessee. In doing so he had violated Tennessee's Anti-evolution Bill, which barred the teaching of evolution in Tennessee schools. The "Scopes Monkey Trial", would become a landmark in the fight over what was to be allowed in classrooms across America. The defense argued, "We plead for freedom of education, for liberty to teach, and the liberty to learn." Though they would not go on to win the actual trial, the reverberations from such a case would prove to be a decisive turning point in the battle for academic freedom.

So where do we find ourselves seventy-five years later? It seems that the tables have turned and we are faced with the Scopes trial in reverse. Today a teacher may be reassigned or even fired for criticizing evolution in the science classroom. Darwinism has become somewhat of a sacred cow that is no longer allowed to be questioned. Does this not totally defeat the purpose of the Scopes Trial? In my opinion, the suppression of academic freedom by only allowing for one viewpoint is the antithesis of the ideals put forth in the hearing.

One alternative to Darwinian evolution now being proposed by some scientists is the 'Intelligent Design Theory'. Now you may be asking yourself, "But is this not a violation of the Separation of Church and State, to criticize Darwinism and allow for the presentation of another theory that implies design?" And my answer to you would simply be no, it is not. The discussion over origins can be explored in a strictly scientific manner. Intelligent design is foremost a contemporary scientific critique of the evidence for the kind of evolution defined by Charles Darwin. It also argues that evidence best suggests design in the universe. But it does not speculate about the nature of a designer, nor enter other religious topics. There is evidence in support of both Darwinism and Design in the universe and students should have the right to hear conflicting view points. As the new Education Bill passed by both House and Senate on December 19 states, " 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." However, this is not being done in our schools today, even though the public overwhelmingly supports the teaching of varying viewpoints: 71 percent to 15 percent according to an August 2001 Zogby poll.

In addition to being denied the choice to present scientific evidence which points to design in nature, many teachers are prevented from correcting text book errors that deal with the origin of life. Arguments for Evolution such as the Miller-Urey experiment, lead students to believe that man can create "life in a test tube", when in reality no one has been able to do so using the components of early earth's atmosphere. Evidence such as the Cambrian Explosion, which shows a sudden appearance of life in the fossil record without precursors, is omitted and instead students are taught that all life gradually branched out from a single common ancestor. Why?
What is there to fear from an open-minded investigation of the facts? As Arthur Garfield Hays, a defense lawyer in the Scopes Trial said, "The theory of our constitution is that in the competition of ideas, truth will prevail." If design in nature is a lie, students will see it as such, but they must be allowed to first hear evidence from both sides and then form reasoned judgements for themselves. The Darwinian theory employs an unfair philosophical bias to exclude critics from the realm of science. If education is truly a vehicle to broaden horizons and enhance thinking, varying viewpoints should be welcome as part of the school experience. I believe that Senator Ted Kennedy, chair of the Education Committee, was correct when he said of the teaching of evolution, "We want children to examine various scientific theories on the basis of all of the information that is available to them so they can talk about different concepts and do it intelligently."

Science has been defined as the search for truth. Does the promotion of one theory with the exclusion of all else live up to this definition? In an ideal situation scientists should openly seek answers without bias and then form a hypothesis based on where the evidence leads. Students should be allowed to do the same. Rather than being indoctrinated with one way of thinking, they must be free to examine varying viewpoints in an unbiased manner.

Let's examine the kind of impacts we have seen result from similar scenarios in the world around us, where intellectual freedom is restricted by the educational establishment. Take for example the situation in Afghanistan, where all knowledge conveyed to students is controlled by the Taliban regime. Young school children are indoctrinated with one way of thinking, taught to believe that American and the Western World are evil and to be hated. Presented with no opposing viewpoint, the children are forced to accept this false perception as truth. Therefore students base their opinions on such, and develop an aversion for the United States. To question this set way of thinking would result in cataclysm. I put to you that we face a similar situation in our schools across America. Though the violent ramifications are not present, the basic principle remains. By not allowing students to hear information from differing sources, they are left with no other choice but to accept the presented theory whether it is true or not. Contrary to Afghanistan, the very essence of our country's constitution is intellectual freedom; the freedom of choice and speech, the right to not be told how to think or believe. So why do we allow this type of indoctrination to persist in our schools?

Today many teachers have been muzzled for simply wanting to instill in their students the freedom to think, by presenting them with differing viewpoints in regards to the topic of origins. Why have we allowed this country to do such a complete about face since the time of the Scopes trial. It is as if we have learned nothing from the fight for academic freedom in the 1920's. Teachers are still being denied the ability to teach their students well, and students are still being denied the right to think. It is as Clarence Darrow said in his closing remarks of the Scopes trial, "We are once more fighting the old question, which after all is nothing but a question of the intellectual freedom of man." I believe this to be very true and extremely pertinent to the situation we face presently. This is an issue that needs to addressed. The house and the Senate have already encouraged the teaching of a full range of scientific views, but this has no bearing unless the public is willing to take an active role in seeing that this is done. As a student this issue of academic and intellectual freedom is of great importance to me. I object the fact that someone feels they have the right to tell me how I should think on a certain subject and what my beliefs should be. And this is exactly what is happening by barring the teaching of a conflicting theory and not even allowing Darwinism to be questioned.

Comments? Contact Heather DeHart at Heatherd_18@hotmail.com

Copyright 2001 idurc.org. All rights reserved. International copyright secured.

Click here to return to the Papers Archive