IMPRINT, the Bell Museum's quarterly magazine for members, offers stories of scientific adventure and discovery, insight into today's rapid environmental changes, updates on museum programs and exhibits, and fun activities for kids. IMPRINT is published quarterly and is available as a benefit of Bell Museum membership.

Our most current cover story is below. For past articles, see the Imprint archives

What happens when science is drafted into America’s "culture wars"?

Culture Clash: Why Evolution is Embattled in America
by Jennifer Amie

Charles Darwin’s legacy—the theory of evolution—is not only the foundation of modern biology, but also, in many ways, the lifeblood of the natural history museum. The result of evolution—the amazing diversity of life on this planet—is documented, preserved, and studied in natural history collections. In fact, Darwin himself collected museum specimens during his historic five-year voyage around South America on the HMS Beagle. Today, the Bell Museum’s scientific curators are evolutionary biologists whose research builds upon Darwin’s discoveries and continues to expand our understanding of life on Earth.

Four Bell Museum curators have received a total of $1.5 million from the National Science Foundation as part of an international scientific effort to map a comprehensive tree of life that will describe how all known species—living and extinct—are interrelated. At the same time, children visiting the museum’s Touch and See Room can examine for themselves the evolutionary adaptations of teeth, skulls, and bones that make organisms suited to survival in their environments. And the sheer breathtaking beauty of life’s diversity is celebrated in the artistry of the museum’s renowned dioramas.

While the theory of evolution is part of the very fabric of natural history museums, its compelling explanatory power holds little sway among members of the public who believe—or who have been told—that to accept “Darwinism” is to put aside their Christian faith. A 2006 study published in the journal Science found that about a third of American adults firmly reject evolution and only 14 percent think that evolution is “definitely true.”

Why, nearly 150 years after Darwin’s idea ushered in the era of modern biology, is evolution so misunderstood—and so controversial—in America? Alone among scientific concepts, the theory of evolution has found itself smack in the middle of America’s “culture wars,” vociferously denounced even while it is poorly understood. Widespread misconceptions about evolution persist. Yet efforts to increase public understanding of evolution—and of the scientific method—are embattled as students, parents, and school boards across the country oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools. A 2005 survey by the National Science Teachers Association found that nearly a third of those who responded felt pressure to soft-pedal the teaching of evolution. These numbers are mirrored in Minnesota, where surveys have shown that almost one third of high school biology teachers do not emphasize evolution.

Science on trial

The teaching of evolution in public schools was the focus of the most famous battle over evolution in America: the Scopes “monkey” trial of 1925, when Clarence Darrow and the ACLU defended a science teacher prosecuted (and ultimately convicted and fined $100) for teaching evolution. Although highly publicized (and later dramatized in theater and film), the Scopes trial did not set a significant legal precedent. A much more significant ruling occurred in 1968, when the Supreme Court struck down an Arkansas prohibition against teaching evolution. After that, a new tactic emerged: rather than trying to suppress the teaching of evolution outright, its opponents sought to teach “alternate theories” alongside evolution—a so-called “balanced treatment” approach that has resurfaced today as an appeal to “teach the controversy.”

In 1987, however, the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana’s balanced treatment law, which would have introduced “creation science” into the biology classroom. The court ruled that creation science was essentially biblical creationism cast in scientific terms: religion cloaked as science. Because it represented a particular religious view—and rested on the idea of a supernatural creator—teaching creation science was deemed a violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which guarantees the separation of church and state.

Despite these decisive rulings, court battles over teaching evolution continue to be fought more than eight decades after the Scopes trial. This comes as no surprise to University of Minnesota professor Mark Borrello, a historian of science and an expert on Darwin. Borrello sees remarkable similarities between today’s cultural and political climate and the historical context of the Scopes trial. “In the 1920s, the issues faced by society were immigration, labor and the disparities between the super-wealthy and the working class, and the aftermath of World War I,” says Borrello. “People were grappling with the question of America’s role in the world. Today we face the same issues, particularly with respect to America’s role in the Middle East. So to me it’s not surprising that evolution debates are making the news.”

The debate rages on, centering, once again, on an appeal to introduce “alternate theories” alongside evolution in the science classroom. The most prominent “alternate theory,” promoted by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, is “intelligent design,” or ID, which evades explicit mention of a creator but posits that the complexity of living systems indicates that they are “intelligently designed” and could not have come about through the process of evolution (which is characterized by ID proponents as random).

There are “gaps” in the theory of evolution, ID proponents say, so why not inform students of alternative explanations and let them decide for themselves? “Teach the controversy” is an argument that, on the surface, seems both reasonable and democratic—except for one problem: within science, there is no controversy.

“Are there disagreements within science? Of course,” says Borrello. “That’s the way it has always been, and it’s fundamental to the progress of science. There may be some disagreement about the pace of evolution: is it gradual or periodic, for example. But the fact that evolution occurs is universally accepted among scientists. The criticism of evolutionary theory is coming not from science, but from outside science. The so-called evolution ‘controversy’ is a sociocultural debate.”

Matters of faith

In particular, the criticism of evolution is, and has always been, rooted in religious objections to a concept that is incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis. “Before Darwin,” says Borrello, “the idea was that God put each flower, each beetle, each animal on earth as a separate act of creation. Darwin’s idea is descent with modification, by mechanisms of natural selection. That’s a radical shift from thinking that the organic forms alive today are the forms that have ever been and ever will be. Before Darwin, the idea was that man is at the pinnacle of creation, made in God’s image. But Darwin’s evolutionary tree was not a progressive climbing up the hierarchy toward man, because variation was random and adaptation was shaped by the environment.” Religious objections to evolution are also fueled by the tendency to conflate Darwin’s ideas with an explanation of the origins of life. “The theory of evolution tells us about the origin of the diversity of species,” says Borrello. “Darwin doesn’t have a theory about the origin of life.”

Such misconceptions prompt some to close their minds to evolution. “In some cases,” says Bell Museum director Scott Lanyon (who studies the evolution of birds), “organizations such as the Discovery Institute are promoting misunderstanding of evolution for political gain.” Yet Lanyon also maintains that scientists bear some responsibility for the public’s lack of understanding of modern science. “Scientists have dismissed the creationists and the intelligent design movement by saying that we don’t need to waste our time responding to that,” he says, “and the result has been to let the opponents of evolution set the agenda.”

That agenda has been to pit science against God, evolution against faith. Yet what seems obvious to most scientists remains an elusive point for much of the public: science is mute on the subject of God. “Science,” says Lanyon, “doesn’t look at anything supernatural.”

Above all, says Borrello, for the past 200 years, science has looked to provide material explanations about the natural world. “I think that science encourages us to recognize boundaries between scientific and non-scientific questions,” says Borrello. “If you’re interested in a dialogue on the question of what it means to be a good human being, it’s arrogant to claim that evolutionary biology can answer those questions for you. It’s not that science will resolve every human dilemma—but it is the way we address many of the most important dilemmas we face today, such as global climate change and the preservation of biodiversity. Scientific ignorance is a dangerous thing.”

Furthermore, says Borrello, science is an integrated system of knowledge. “If people think they can pick and choose the parts they like,” he says, “that’s a problem.” Lanyon agrees, noting that as part of the science curriculum, evolution is the foundation for all the biological sciences. “Just as students need to know the periodic table, continental drift, and the theory of the atom,” he says, “they need to understand evolution. They need to know the foundation of life science.”

The dangers of denial

Evolution by natural selection is an elegantly simple concept. It says that the diversity of life on earth is the result of descent with modification. Organisms inherit many characteristics from their parents, but are not exactly identical to their parents—there is genetic variation within a population. Characteristics that are advantageous to survival within a given environment will be passed along at a greater rate, increasing in the next generation. Characteristics that are disadvantageous to survival will be passed along at a lesser rate, decreasing in the next generation. Over time, advantageous traits will become more common in a population. In addition, highly specialized adaptations can result, and new species can emerge.

In the nearly 150 years since the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species, scientists in the fields of biology, genetics, geology, paleontology, and biochemistry have amassed vast bodies of evidence that uphold and corroborate the theory of evolution, and the science of evolutionary biology has expanded into exciting new fields such as “evo/devo,” or evolutionary developmental biology (see p. 10). Under-standing evolution helps us battle human diseases and crop pests, develop new vaccines, make good decisions about environmental conservation, and even solve crimes.

In 2005, science education claimed a major victory in Dover, Pa. when a federal judge ruled that teachers could not be required to read students a statement declaring that evolution was “not a fact” and directing them to a book on intelligent design. Judge John E. Jones III, a George W. Bush appointee, concluded that intelligent design was simply “creation science” relabeled, writing in his decision that intelligent design is not science and that, “moreover, ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.” He further took the ID movement to task for its culturally divisive strategies, writing that “many of the proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial … scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.”

Though the Dover trial has likely had a chilling effect on the intelligent design movement, challenges to science education will continue to arise, predicts Lanyon. “The stated goal of the Discovery Institute is to change the nature of science,” he says. “It is the responsibility of scientists now to help science educators to keep religion out of science classrooms. Scientists haven’t made themselves accessible to educators. It’s time we provided guidance about how to respond to students, parents, principals, and school boards when challenges to evolution—and to science in general—arise. We need to help these groups understand what is science and what is not.”

Like it or not, scientists have been drafted into America’s culture wars. Unfortunately for them, the battle is largely waged in the arena of public relations, led by privately funded institutes backed by professional communications firms. Attempts to sway public opinion are well outside the comfort zone of most scientists, who operate by gathering evidence and not by crafting sound bites. Yet, say Lanyon and Borrello, scientists must be willing to engage.

Bell Museum programs are one way that University of Minnesota scientists are reaching the public—not through spin, but through thoughtful presentations about science and research, such as the lively Café Scientifique discussion held recently on the subject of evolution. To support science educators, Borrello, Lanyon, and several other scientists have teamed up with local parents to found Minnesota Citizens for Science Education (www.mnscience.org), which provides resources for teachers, students, and parents. “As a society,” says Lanyon, “we can’t afford to let a religious argument dominate the critical subject of how we teach science in our schools. The fact is, life evolves. We ignore—or choose to deny—this scientific fact at our own peril.”