the tindog coffeehouse

Students shouldn’t be allowed to debate. Students shouldn’t be allowed to draw their own conclusions. Students should never be taught that a controversial issue is in fact controversial and that not everyone agrees on it. Students should be taught one side and only one side of an argument, end of discussion.

At least that’s the position of political science professors Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer. According to surveys conducted by them, they found that a whopping 60 percent of biology teachers around the country allowed room for debate and doubt when teaching the subject of evolution. And that, they argue, is unacceptable.

Many of these teachers lack the educational expertise to defend evolution, so they resort to dodging the creationism vs. evolution “controversy” altogether. Some of them shift the blame of having to teach evolution to state examinations, while pointing out to students that they do not need to actually believe it. Other teachers focus on molecular evolution, avoiding macroevolution of species, which prevents students from understanding the complete picture. Finally, some teachers like to provide students with both sides of the discussion and allow students to draw their own conclusions. Berkman and Plutzer find this last approach particularly worrisome, as it gives students the impression that a well-established concept, which is supported by thousands of scientific papers, is debatable based on personal opinions.

The professors identify several reasons for this “worrisome” teaching method. First, there are too many “conservative” school districts, where teachers teach according to the political and social ideology of the community they’re in. Second, “highly educated and cosmopolitan” teachers stuck in politically diverse districts are forced to teach evolution cautiously in order to “stay out of trouble”. Third, while the pro-evolution camp has grown significantly in the last few decades, there’s “a lot of information in churches and the Internet that takes a contrary position, too.” And fourth (and most importantly, they say), most teachers just don’t know enough about evolution to teach it to the professors’ standards.

The answer, according to Berkman and Plutzer, is to immerse teachers in the study of evolution until they are unable to teach anything contrary to it.

Sounds a little like brainwashing, no?

Because heaven forbid students should be given any latitude to come to a conclusion that may be different than that of their teachers or some liberal political science professors from Pennsylvania. Because allowing for such debate, for doubt, for questioning, for — dare I say it — disagreement would completely undermine a pro-Evolutionist agenda which seeks to eradicate the very notion of a Creator or God. And that simply is not an option.

The problem, as I see it, is not the teachers’ belief or lack of belief in evolution. That should be irrelevant. The problem is the one-sided presentation of it. The question of evolution may be considered settled within the scientific community and “higher education”, but that doesn’t mean that it’s any less controversial. Obviously, there are those, including myself, that don’t accept that life on Earth originated from a single chemical reaction which resulted in the first strands of DNA and RNA or that human beings evolved from other species. So why not teach both sides, or at the very least acknowledge that more than one side exists? It doesn’t mean that everyone has to agree with Creationism or agree with Evolution, only that they understand the controversy surrounding each. After all, this is the way other subjects are taught.

Consider the study of history. Most people agree that slavery is inhumane and that segregation is detestable. Yet, when studying American history, we must acknowledge both. We must recognize that not everyone disagreed with slavery or segregation and that for generations both were completely normal and socially acceptable. Teachers don’t have to agree with slavery in order to teach that it existed, and teaching about it is not the same as endorsing it. The reality is that history and social studies teachers routinely teach about controversial issues without taking sides or penalizing students who may lean a different direction politically than them.

So why can’t we take the same approach with the subject of evolution? Why can’t we give students an opportunity to do their own research and come to their own conclusions? Because for Evolutionists such as Berkman and Plutzer, it is politically and socially disadvantageous to do so. Instead of acknowledging an alternative, they would prefer to disavow that one ever existed. But that’s not science, that’s censorship. And it’s that censorship which is ultimately the most worrisome to parents like me.

Previously:
How much emphasis should be placed on Christianity when teaching history?
Bill would protect the grades of students who disagree with evolution
The Vatican: Evolution compatible with Christian faith
Should evolution be debated in public schools?