Evolution supporters, foes say law is on their side
By The Associated Press
05.20.02
COLUMBUS, Ohio — When President Bush signed the education reform bill, critics of teaching evolution in public schools celebrated.
So did supporters.
To bolster their arguments, both sides have latched onto one sentence in a congressional report accompanying the law. They are interpreting differently, however, the weight of the statement.
The statement says that "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."
Ohio is the first state since the bill became law in January to draft new standards on what students should know and teachers should teach about science. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001 requires states to implement standards and accountability measures for K-12 education. New student tests in math, reading and science will begin to take effect in the fall 2005.
The first two drafts of Ohio's new standards included evolution as the only explanation that students should learn about how life began and changed. Some state school board members have pushed to add alternatives or to broaden the standards.
That presumably would allow the examination of alternative concepts such as "intelligent design," the idea that life is so complex that it must have been designed by a higher power and did not occur by chance.
Evolution opponents say that with the congressional report, lawmakers now are on record suggesting the schools teach evidence both for and against Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection.
"State standards should follow that same federal language," said Bruce Chapman, president of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank supporting alternatives to evolution. "It shows that people in Congress are beginning to see that it's only fair to present all sides."
However, backers of evolution note that the statement was in the report, not the law.
The National Center for Science Education says the omission means Congress as a whole rejected the idea that alternatives to evolution be taught. The organization, based in Oakland, Calif., says only evolution should be taught because it is the only life theory supported by scientific evidence.
"The language doesn't carry the weight of law — period," said Skip Evans, the center's project director. "And, states don't have to do what it says."
Experts in interpreting legislation agree.
"It's merely a suggestion at this point," said Steve Huefner, an assistant professor at Ohio State University School of Law.
Conference committee reports mainly are used by courts to determine lawmakers' intent when a law is challenged, said Huefner and David Mann, an adjunct law professor at the University of Cincinnati who once served in Congress.
"A statement in the report is only interpreted by courts in the course of clarifying an ambiguous statute," Mann said.
However, they say the statement does express the opinion of at least some members of Congress that students are entitled to explore all sides of controversial topics in all subjects.
The statement replaced an amendment proposed by Sen. Rick Santorum, a Republican from Pennsylvania. The amendment would have required attention to controversy, but only when biological evolution is taught.
The Senate approved the amendment in its version of the bill, but it was dropped as one of dozens of compromises when a House-Senate committee worked to come up with one proposal.
U.S. Reps. John Boehner and Steve Chabot, both Ohio Republicans, urged school board members to follow the language in the report. Boehner was one of the sponsors of the bill and a co-chairman of the conference committee.
Santorum wrote a letter published in The Washington Times in March saying students would be denied a first-rate education if Ohio didn't adopt standards about alternative ideas to evolution, including intelligent design.
"Dissenting theories should not be repressed, but discussed openly. To do otherwise is to violate intellectual freedom," Santorum wrote.