Why not let the students decide?

Project Steve

Anti-evolutionists like to compile lists of scientists who oppose evolution. The Discovery Institute's list had 753 signers as of 12/2008. NCSE runs Project Steve in parody of this practice, named in honor of the late Stephen Jay Gould. Project Steve lists only scientists who both accept evolution and have the name Steve. This list had 991 signers as of 12/2008. About 1% of scientists are named Steve.

Some allege “weaknesses” with evolution and demand that they be taught. Others say evolution is one of the strongest theories in science and that the “weaknesses” are false fabrications.

Ignore for the moment that all of the major science organizations support evolution. Ignore that the scientists of these organizations include people of many religious faiths and cultures worldwide. Also ignore that virtually every author who argues against evolution also writes promoting creationism. Ignoring all this, what the public sees is people arguing about evolution. The public sees what appears to be a controversy.

“If the adults can't decide,” it seems reasonable to ask, “why not teach 'both sides' and let the students decide?”

Why not let the students decide?

First, because this is a religious controversy, and religion is a private matter belonging to families and not to public schools.

Second, because the two sides want different outcomes:

Teach evolution as debatable opinion.
Teach evolution as scientific discovery.

“Letting the students decide” is letting the “debatable opinion” side win. This isn't even a compromise.

The problem is that the controversy is religious and not scientific. Nowhere in the journals of science is there controversy over whether life evolved. Over the past 150 years, science has only further and further confirmed evolution. The controversy is over whether evolution is compatible with faith, and it is playing out within the politics of education. Anti-evolutionists want to teach that evolution is just debatable opinion.

However, there is much more at stake than just which side wins the battle. Imagine for a moment that “teach both sides” wins. Science teachers would teach creationism's arguments against evolution. Have a look at what these arguments would teach our children:

Problems with Teaching
“Both Sides”

Teaches students to think unscientifically.: The anti-evolutionist “side” doesn't just teach false information. It teaches students to be illogical, to report only supporting facts, to disregard contrary facts, to trust intuition over evidence, to misrepresent other people's words, to walk away from challenges, and much more. It teaches students that science is about convincing people using any means possible, when science is really about teasing answers out of the world. False weaknesses teach students to think unscientifically.
Teaches critical analysis as opinion-making.: We would be asking students in an introductory science class to decide what is scientific and what is not. In a class where students should be studying examples of science to learn what science is and how it is done, we would instead be giving students examples of both science and peusdoscience and letting them decide for themselves which is which. This isn't teaching critical analysis, this is teaching students to make uninformed opinions. Students need to be well-grounded in science before they can judge whether something is scientific.
Turns students against science.: Evolution is not controversial in the scientific community. We would be asking students, in an introductory science class, to decide whether all these scientists around the world are mistaken. This is absurd. Consider that in NCSE's Voices for Evolution, all of the major scientific organizations have affirmed the validity of evolution. In a student's first introduction to science, we would establishing an antagonistic relationship between the student and the community of scientists. This is not the way to cultivate future scientists. This is how you turn students against science.

As reasonable as it seemed for the adults to just punt the problem and let the students decide, doing so would be deeply harmful to our children's education. It would teach students that science is an anything-goes rhetorical game, that critical analysis is about making uninformed opinions, and that scientists are a suspicious lot who don't really know what they are doing.

As you can see, teaching “both sides” would teach students to think un-scientifically.