WHEN science education in the US has come under attack from religious critics, it has proved useful in the past to ask the question, what is science? This approach has been key to keeping public-school science lessons free from non-scientific alternatives to Darwinian evolution, such as creationism and intelligent design (ID) 鈥� the notion that life is so complex it could not have arisen without an intelligent agency, aka God. By defining science in terms of the open-ended search for knowledge that can be tested in the physical world, it becomes easier to spot those who would distort science to fit the answers they already 鈥渒now鈥�.
For the past 20 years, US courts have demonstrated their ability to perceive this distinction by striking down various attempts to introduce anti-evolutionist thinking into schools. But now the ID crowd has forced a new question into the mix, and it is a troubling one: what is academic freedom?
As a principle, academic freedom can be traced at least as far back as 1605 and Francis Bacon鈥檚 The Advancement of Learning. It gives academics the right, within the limits of free speech, to question and test any ideas, regardless of whether they are controversial or unpopular with the powers that be, and it has become an established feature of higher learning in modern democracies.
Advertisement
Now, according to supporters of the Louisiana Science Education Act, which became a state law two weeks ago, academic freedom is what elementary and secondaryschool teachers and school board officials need in order to pursue an 鈥渙pen discussion of scientific theories鈥� with their students. Not surprisingly, given the law鈥檚 originators on the religious right (鈥淓volution, global warming and cloning: up for grabs in Louisiana鈥�), it places evolution at the top of the list of theories now open for discussion. It then makes provision for teachers to introduce books and other materials from outside the standard curriculum to help students 鈥渃ritique鈥� the science they are taught.
Even for the broad concept of academic freedom this is a mighty stretch, and a corrosively cynical one. It takes a cherished feature of science 鈥� the unrestricted nature of rational inquiry 鈥� and turns it on its head to promote a non-rational agenda. This is strikingly similar to the way intelligent design advocates tried to insist that ID was a credible scientific alternative to evolution, which it is not, and then argued that schools should 鈥渢each the controversy鈥�. The tactic disingenuously made opponents of ID out to be intellectually intolerant.
鈥淭he act takes a cherished feature of science and turns it on its head to promote a non-rational agenda鈥�
The question scientists and educators now face is how to address this latest challenge. It is not only evolution that may now be targeted by religiously or politically motivated groups, but also global warming, the big bang and many other topics. This is a tricky matter because restrictions are not the answer. Schools badly need creative teachers who can excite students by debating controversial issues. What is important is to differentiate between scientific findings and religiously or politically inspired ideas.
There is no simple solution to the problem of an 鈥渁cademic freedom鈥� law like Louisiana鈥檚 Science Education Act. What will be needed is participation from parents and scientists at the local level to maintain the clear divide between science and religion. In the past, many scientists were loath to engage in this way for fear of giving legitimacy to absurd ideas like intelligent design, or simply because to do so was perceived to be a waste of time.
This time engagement is essential. The fact that academic freedom bills were introduced in six US states this year, and that the one in Louisiana received nearly unanimous support, demonstrates the gulf that exists between how scientists perceive reality and how some politicians do. That鈥檚 why it is not enough for scientists to assert that evolution is correct or global warming is real: scientists and educators need to help people understand what constitutes scientific thinking.
The tragedy in the ongoing efforts to undermine evolution in US public schools is not just that it seeks to mix science with religion, but that it does so in such a counterproductive way. There are plenty of topics that are informed by science and which have a genuine moral dimension, not least the impact of the western lifestyle on the rest of the planet. The religious right has largely ignored these topics. When academic freedom means the freedom to tune out, it is no freedom at all.
