This article originally appeared in the January 12, 1982 issue of the Boston Phoenix.
The replay of the Great Monkey Trial is over — or at least the first act of it. A federal judge has ruled that an Arkansas law calling for equal time for “creation science” in the public schools violates the separation of church and state. Advantage, Darwin. But the battle has not ended. Louisiana has passed a similar law, and the creationists vow to fight on.
“Creationism” has been on the march in the past few years. There is legislation pending in as many as eight states, and a group called “Citizens Against Federal Establishment of Evolutionary Dogma” has drafted a bill that would require equal time for creationism in all federally supported educational programs.
Even if creationism gets stopped in its tracks by the ACLU and by judges’ insistence on reading the First Amendment, it may be that the Dump Darwin folks are on to something new. If you don’t like what your kids are learning in school, march off to your state rep and get him to do something about it.
Creationist laws, of course, needlessly pit religion against science. It is perfectly possible to believe in both God and Darwin. Modern Bible scholars point out that Bible stories were often parables, meant to convey moral truths to a people who were mostly nomadic and unlettered. Adam and Eve played a lot better in a field of shepherds than the Big Bang ever would have. How well would Genesis have gone over if it had proclaimed, “In the beginning, God made 47,000,000 particles, each of them with a positive electric charge”?
Moreover, this sort of legislation could be the start of a dangerous trend of putting state legislators in the business of designing schools’ science curriculums. The average state legislator is as qualified for that job as the average viewer of Monday Night Football. Science is a veritable Cuisinart of ideas, and in that whirl, the best ideas eventually rise to the top. It is risky to interfere with this process by state fiat — and interference is exactly what is happening.
One wonders what would happen if other special-interest groups, spurred by the success of the creationists, tried to travel the same route. Imagine the plight of the high-school science teacher in the not-too-distant future, as he is grilled by his principle about his lesson plans for the year:
“Well, Mr. Hansen, I see that you are preparing this year’s curriculum. We must make sure that it is in line with the will of the state legislature. Tell me what you plan to teach.”
“Sir, we have an exciting year ahead. In biology we have a unit on reproduction that will deal with the function of the sperm and the egg —”
“Stop right there, Hansen. Are you aware that under Public Law 11846, you must not mention those filthy words? You must plan a lesson in Stork Science.”
“I beg your pardon?”
“That was the law pushed through by STORK — Stop Teaching Odious Rot to Kids. The idea is to get sex out of the classroom and back to the gutter where it belongs. You will teach the students that babies are brought by a large bird that flies over the house, carrying the baby in a diaper, and drops the baby down the chimney.”
“But sir — that’s not science.”
“Is science supposed to fill innocent young minds with prurient ideas, Hansen? It is perfectly possible for a full-grown stork to carry the weight of a baby. It is a reasonable theory.”
“Sir, I can’t teach my students that the stork brings babies!”
“The state legislature says you can. Now, what else are you planning this year?”
“Well sir, in the environmental-science unit, we plan to study the harmful effects of air pollution, smog, and acid rain.
That’s all well and good, Hansen, but you must present a balanced view. According to a recent bill lobbied through by the National Association of Manufacturers, science teachers must also teach their students about the benefits of pollution.
“The benefits? Of polluted air?”
“Great sunsets, for example. You think we’d have such gorgeous sunsets if we didn’t have all those bits of smog making such beautiful reds and purples? What’s a little emphysema compared to the twilight’s last gleaming? I’m glad I have the chance to fill you in on all our wonderful new laws. Now, let’s hear more about the year ahead.”
“We have a wonderful new program, sir, in genetics. We’re going to teach the students how genes work, and how outmoded theories of racial superiority — like Hitler’s nonsense about an Aryan race — were based on cultural myth and not science.”
“Now, hold on Hansen. You remember the balanced-treatment model of teaching creation and evolution?”
“How can I forget it, sir?”
“Well, the KKK thought that was a dandy idea. They sponsored a bill mandating the teaching of separationist genetics. It’s a theory that black genes are different that white genes, and that the brains of black people are very small because God intended them to be field hands.”
