Scientific theory is having a hard time in American public schools.
Nearly 100 years ago, science teacher John Scopes was convicted of violating a Tennessee law that prohibited the teaching of evolution. Although his conviction was overturned as a formality in 1927, laws banning Darwin’s theory remained in place for another 40 years. They were declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968.
In recent decades, conservative or religious groups that object to the inclusion of the theory of evolution in science classes have tried a different approach. Now, they argue, if the “scientific” theory of evolution is taught, other views, such as “intelligent design”—a replacement for creationism—should also be taught.
Broadening efforts
The approach is not limited to evolution. Legislatures across the country are proposing or passing laws that claim to encourage scientific discussion, but instead encourage students to treat established, scientific theories as equal to ideas that have not undergone scientific study.
In 2012, lawmakers in Tennessee—the same state where the Scopes trial took place nearly a century ago—passed a law requiring teachers to present the “scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories.” What constituted a scientific “strength” or “weakness” was not defined.
Similar bills were introduced in North Dakota in 2019 and in Oklahoma in 2023. If passed, the Oklahoma bill would encourage teachers to explore scientific theories in the classroom and help students “analyze certain scientific strengths and weaknesses.”
And a new law in West Virginia allows teachers to discuss or answer “student questions about scientific theories.” The bill’s author, Sen. Amy Grady, said the law is about “encouraging students to think, encouraging students to ask questions, and encouraging our teachers to be able to answer them.”
Legal battles looming
In my view, legislation that involves the teaching of scientific theories is being used to influence what is taught in public schools. The law is likely to face a legal challenge. More than 20 years ago, in Kitzmiller v. Dover, a federal court ruled that intelligent design was not science; it lacked empirical evidence and testable hypotheses. Teaching it would violate the First Amendment’s prohibition on state support of religion.
As a teacher – and as a scientist who studies the nature of science – I believe that understanding scientific knowledge is crucial; scientific theories are part of this knowledge.
Accepted scientific theories are the best explanations available so far for how the world works. They have been thoroughly tested and are supported by evidence, often from different fields. For example, evidence supporting large-scale evolution comes from fossils, DNA analysis, and comparing the anatomy of different organisms.
Update theories
Scientific theories can be revised. They can change or even be rejected, but they are durable. The history of science is full of stories about new evidence, reinterpretation of existing evidence, and technological advances that changed science. For example, the discovery of the microscope in the 16th century literally changed how scientists saw the world.
Scientific theories have explanatory power about the natural world. For example, Earth’s gravity can be explained by general relativity. Theories also have predictive power. They can be used to generate research ideas. As summarized by astrophysicist and author Neil deGrasse Tyson, “A well-constructed theory should explain some of what is not understood and, more importantly, predict previously unknown phenomena that can be tested. A successful theory is one where experiments consistently confirm its predictions.”
Given these characteristics of scientific theories, the current laws governing how theories are introduced and taught in classrooms are concerning. These laws are supported by the assumption that accepted scientific theories are nothing more than speculation.
Discussing facts
For example, a 2023 Montana bill would ban science education on “topics that are not scientific fact.” The bill devalues scientific theories as conjecture or unproven assumptions. It undermines their inclusion, as established ideas, in the K-12 curriculum. Atomic theory may be a theory, but it is fundamental to human understanding of matter and is a foundation of all natural science.
Legislation that invites exploration, debate, or analysis of theories in the classroom can mask other intentions. For example, the sponsor of Senate Bill 140 in Oklahoma said he hoped the bill would “expose the ‘theory’ aspect of evolution by allowing alternative views to be presented.”
Laws like West Virginia’s go a step further. They open the door to discussions about alternatives to scientific theories. This allows non-scientific ideas to be introduced in a stealthy manner. Amanda Townley, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, criticized West Virginia’s law in an article for Scientific American. She expressed concern that such laws open the door to false beliefs in the public classroom, such as that the Earth is flat or that crystals can heal.
Towards scientific literacy
In contrast to legislators who would allow any kind of theory in science class, experts like Fouad Abd-El-Khalick, a leading international researcher on science education, argue that students in K-12 should be taught about the characteristics of scientific theories in a developmentally appropriate way. For example, U.S. standards for teaching science say that by the end of 12th grade, students should understand that a “scientific theory is a reasoned explanation of some aspect of the natural world based on a body of facts that has been repeatedly confirmed by observation and experiment.”
Students should be encouraged to think critically and ask questions – such as “What is the evidence to support this theory?” or “How was this theory tested?” – with the caveat that any theories in question must have already achieved “scientific theory” status before being allowed into the curriculum.
Education experts say primary and secondary schools should provide students with a “functional level of scientific literacy,” enabling them to understand and make decisions about issues related to science in everyday life, from vaccines to baking cakes.
Part of acquiring this literacy is understanding and trusting the knowledge produced by science, such as facts, laws, and scientific theories.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization that brings you facts and reliable analysis to help you understand our complex world. It was written by: Ryan Summers, University of North Dakota
Read more:
Ryan Summers receives funding from the National Science Foundation, ND EPSCoR, and the National Institute of Health.