READ NOW : Washington Senate antievolution law: info on hearing

SkeptInq (SkeptInq@aol.com)
Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:09:51 EST 

 Subj:   READ NOW : Washington Senate antievolution law: info on hearing
 Date:  98-01-20 20:20:54 EST
 From:  e_scott@earthlink.net (Eugenie C.)
 Reply-to:      scott@NatCenSciEd.org
 To:    skeptinq@aol.com (barrykarr)

 Friends,

 We have just learned that the first reading of the "Alabama
 Disclaimer" introduced into the Washington Senate will take place
 this Thursday, 1/22, at 8:00 AM in Olympia.  (Nice choice of
 time....)  Here is the relevant info:

 Thursday 1/22 8:00 AM
 Senate Hearing room #1
 Senate Education Committee
 Senate Building
 Olympia

 It is very useful for citizens to express their opinions about such
 bills in committees, so please try to go and get information to
 colleagues and friends who can go.  There is always much enthusiasm
 for such bills from antievolutionists, and it is important that the
 pro-evolution side be on record as having been expressed.

 If you wish additional information about points to raise, please
 give us a call.  We can e-mail and/or FAX  you ideas.  I include
 below the text of a flyer written by Molleen Matsumura on "what's
 Wrong With ‘Theory not Fact' Policies on Teaching Evolution" that is
 relevant to the Alabama/Washington disclaimer.

 Please respond!  Get people to attend this hearing (and let us know
 what arguments are presented for the other pro-bill side: it may be
 necessary should there be a lawsuit in the future!)

 Sincerely,

 Eugenie

 Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D.
 Executive Director
 National Center for Science Education, Inc.
 925 Kearney St.
 El Cerrito, CA 94530-2810
 510-526-1674
 FAX: 510-526-1675

 scott@NatCenSciEd.org
 http://www.NatCenSciEd.org



 Here is a copy of Molleen's brochure.  Feel free to distribute.


 What's Wrong With "Theory Not Fact" Policies on Teaching Evolution?


 1.  Legislation or regulations that single out evolution for
 restriction, ignoring other scientific topics,  are
 unconstitutional (Epperson v. Arkansas)

 2.  Legislation that requires teaching evolution as "theory" or
 "belief" only, or that it not be taught as "fact", without defining
 these terms, is too vague to give real guidance to school districts
 and teachers about what may be taught.

 3.  Such legislation intimidates teachers, who are likely to avoid
 teaching a subject for fear of violating the law. Legislation that
 explicitly bans teaching evolution has been found unconstitutional;
 vague legislation that has a "chilling effect" is also likely to be
 found unconstitutional.  In First Amendment law, laws which have a
 "chilling"effect on behavior are often found to be as
 unconsitutional as laws which explicitly forbid that behavior.

 4.  "Theory, not fact" legislation implies that "theory" should be
 understood in the ordinary sense of "guess" or "hunch."  Science
 teachers, however, use scientific terminology, in which "theory"
 means a logical, tested, well-supported explanation for a great
 variety of facts.  In a physics class, students will learn that the
 theory of gravity explains such facts as the rate of acceleration of
 falling objects; in chemistry class, they learn that atomic theory
 explains the structure and behavior of elements and compounds; in
 biology they learn that the theory of evolution explains facts about
 genetics and other subjects.  If the purpose of the legislation is
 to require that teachers and texts offer evolution as a theory in
 the scientific sense, it is unnecessary -- they already do so.

 5. Theory, not fact" legislation, if passed, is likely to cost the
 taxpayers money for useless litigation.  In 1968, in its Epperson v.
 Arkansas decision, the Supreme Court  outlawed bans on teaching
 evolution.  In 1994, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in
 Peloza v. Capistrano that evolution is not a religious belief but a
 scientific principle; the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of
 this ruling, allowing the decision to stand.  And in 1997, in
 Freiler v Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, the District Court
 for the Eastern District of Louisiana ruled unconstitutional a
 policy adopted partly because Board members objected to teaching
 evolution "as fact," and requiring that a disclaimer  be read aloud
 by teachers whenever they taught about evolution.

 by Molleen Matsumura
 National Center for Science Education, Inc.
 925 Kearney St.
 El Cerrito, CA 94530-2810
 800-290-6006
 www.NatCenSciEd.org
 molleen@NatCenSciEd.org