CSI in the News October 2011 - CSI Today

instance of what [*585] Laurence Tribe once said about the abortion issue: What we have here is a“clash of absolutes” that is in large measure impervious to reason and evidence. The secular andscientific consensus on evolution threatens the deeply held religious values of large numbers of people.After that, there really isn’t all that much to say.Although there is some truth to this common wisdom, Berkman and Plutzer show, the story ofevolutionary biology in the classroom is far more complicated and interesting. The authors’ contributionbegins, as does much good social science, with some simple, important, and neglected questions: Whoshould decide what children learn in public schools? Who decides now? How are policies on teachingevolution made in the fifty states? How are they actually implemented (made?) at the point of contactin the classroom? Why do teaching practices take the shape and form that they do? To address thesequestions, the authors take us on a journey through America’s honeycombed system of educationalpolitics and policymaking. We encounter some surprising facts, which in turn call for explanation, whichin turn give rise to new questions, which in turn give rise to the need to dig out more facts. The heart ofthis book consists of results from a nationwide, six‐page survey of 926 high school biology teachersconducted in 2007.Berkman and Plutzer focus on first response to the question “who should decide?” The democraticanswer is that the people should govern. Faith in democracy finds institutional reflection in traditions offederalism and local control in education. In a constitutional democracy, however, the people oftendon’t rule unproblematically, or without limit. When it comes to teaching evolution, democracycompetes with roughly three other important sources of authority: (1) law and courts, (2) science andthe views of policy experts, and (3) ideas about the professionalism and autonomy of teachers.Chapter 1 offers a brief legal and policy history of the evolution conflict, taking us from Scopes toKitzmiller. Law and courts scholars have often remarked that the implementation of judicial decisions isgenerally easier when a court says “stop doing x,” as opposed to “do x.” The creationism decisions bearthis out. There is a constitutional boundary here. States cannot ban evolution or allow “creationscience” or “intelligent design” (ID) to be taught. Lawmakers in state capitals respect this boundary, giveor take a few momentary lapses, as do teachers in the nation’s classrooms, give or take a few outliers.At the same time, the authors remind us, the boundary has another, “permissive” side. The spacenarrowed by the law “still provides significant room” for a wide range of policies and practices (p.25). Dothe people govern within this permissive zone?In Chapter 2, Berkman and Plutzer turn to public opinion on teaching creationism and evolution. Somemight find these facts surprising, or even jarring. After canvassing (and in some cases reanalyzing) allrelevant polls and surveys over the past three decades, the authors conclude that a substantial majorityof Americans endorse teaching both creationism and evolution. Indeed, five administrations of onesurvey since 1999 reveal that 38% of Americans say [*586] they would like “to replace scientificdiscussions of human origins with biblically inspired alternatives” (p. 36). Poll results consistently showthat teaching evolution only (which is, after all, the official policy in all fifty states) comes in a distantthird place to teaching both evolution and creationism or teaching creationism only. Teaching evolutiononly received as low as 12% support, and never came in at higher than 35% (pp.36‐39). These opinions,the authors argue, have little to do with “irrationality” or “ignorance.” Support for creationism is rationalin the minimal sense that it flows readily and coherently from broader belief systems. Even among the“scientifically literate,” public opinion still overwhelming favors teaching both (pp.49; 75‐79). After thisnational overview, one might think that when it comes to teaching evolution there is a very large gapbetween public opinion (the democratic will, if one likes) and public policy. But that view would bePage 35 of 154