 
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Saturday, July 07, 2001
It has been rightly said that there is no place for democracy in science. Thankfully, however, the democratic process is functioning fairly well in the adoption of science standards for Pennsylvania's public school students.
The state's Independent Regulatory Review Commission wisely has picked up on some questionable wording in the proposed standards written under the direction of the state Department of Education. The phrasing, first pointed out in a news article by Post-Gazette staff writer Pamela R. Winnick in November, was included in the standards at the urging of, and much to the glee of, the mostly Christian backers of creationism and intelligent design.
The goal of the creationists was to leave an opening for classroom discussion of the biblical story of life's origins. This, even in the face of consistent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that conclude that teaching creationism in science class is teaching religion and thus unconstitutional in public schools. (That doesn't mean that creationism and other religious accounts can't be discussed in a philosophy or comparative-religion class.)
Joining in the anti-evolution effort are some proponents of intelligent design, a sort of "creationism lite" supported by some scientists that promotes the idea that a higher being created all other forms of life.
The IRRC, however, in its comments to the state Board of Education has indicated that, contrary to assurances by the board, the standards could lead to the teaching of religion-based theories in science classes.
According to Peter Garland, executive director of the board, staff members will work quickly to reword the standards before next week's meeting. The state board must vote on the standards, which then must go through another cycle of legislative and internal approvals.
We don't want to see any further delays in adopting the standards for teaching science or any other subject included under the Chapter 4 regulations, which were passed in 1999 and still are under major construction. Still, we would urge state officials to work carefully as well as expediently to ensure that real science is taught in science class and that any pseudoscience can't sneak in through a crack in a window opened by creationists.
Giving "equal time" to "theories" prompted by religious beliefs might be considered fair by some. But while democracy is fine in a political context, insertion of such "fairness" in science can lead only to bad science.