Zimmerman, Michael.  "Keep guard up after evolution 
victory"  BioScience  37 (9):  636,  October  l987.  
[This  is  a  "Viewpoint" editorial,  and  is  very 
nearly  the  first thing one sees  on  opening  the 
October   issue   of  BioScience.    Zimmerman   is 
Professor of Biology at Oberlin  College,  Oberlin, 
OH,  44074,  and  is Editor of the Ohio Center  for 
Science Education Newsletter.]  

While,  as biologists and educators,  we have great 
cause  for  rejoicing over the  recent  US  Supreme 
Court  decision  in the Louisiana "equal  treatment 
for    'creation   science'"   case,    we    must, 
nevertheless, be very careful.  I am concerned that 
much of the scientific community will now treat the 
creation-evolution issue in the same way the  issue 
was  treated immediately following the Scopes trial 
in  1925.   That  is,  the issue will  be  ignored.  
After   witnessing  the  humiliation  suffered   by 
William  Jennings  Bryan at the hands  of  Clarence 
Darrow and H.L.  Mencken,  the scientific community 
assumed that their battle was  won.   However,  the 
legacy  of  the  Scopes trial was a  diminution  of 
evolutionary  coverage  in high  school  textbooks, 
reduction  of classroom time devoted to  evolution, 
and  the passage of antievolution laws  in  various 
states.   Evolutionist  forces  may  have  won  the 
Scopes battle, but, by default, they lost virtually 
every battle waged in the ensuing 35 years.

Unless  we are vigilant,  the recent Supreme  Court 
victory  for  evolutionists could also  turn  sour.  
The  actual  decision  in the  Louisiana  case  was 
weaker  than Judge William Overton's earlier ruling 
overturning a similar law in Arkansas.  The Supreme 
Court  ruling  did not,  in  any  way,  outlaw  the 
teaching  of  "creation science" in  public  school 
classrooms.   Quite  simply it ruled that,  in  the 
form   taken   by   the  Louisiana   law,   it   is 
unconstitutional  to  demand equal  time  for  this 
particular  subject.   "Creation science" can still 
be  brought  into science classrooms  if  and  when 
teachers   and  administrators  feel  that  it   is 
appropriate.   Numerous  surveys  have  shown  that 
teachers and administrators favor just this route.    
And, in fact, "creation science" is currently being  
taught in science courses throughout the country.

Bill  Keith,  the state senator who introduced  the 
Louisiana  law,  has stated quite clearly that  the 
war is not over.   The battleground in simply going 
to  shift.   Instead  of fighting at the state  and 
national level,  creationists are expected to  move 
to  the  local level,  where they may put  enormous 
pressure on individual teachers and school boards.  
Teachers  and administrators are not only going  to 
be  under  increased  pressure  to  provide   equal 
treatment  for "creation science," but also to omit 
any topics that contain evolutionist perspective.

Professional  biologists  and  educators  need   to 
continue   to  be  very  active  in  the  creation-
evolution fight if the Supreme Court decision is to 
have a lasting, positive effect.  First, we need to 
support elementary and secondary science  teachers.  
Those   teaching   evolutionist  topics   must   be 
encouraged,  and  those  under pressure  either  to 
teach creationism or to omit evolution must be able 
to  turn to us for help.   Some state academies  of 
science   (e.g.,   Iowa  and  Ohio)  have  standing 
committees  that  are  designed  to  mediate   such 
disputes.   We  need  to  get  involved  with  such 
committees, or work to form comparable groups. 

Second,  the National Center for Science Education, 
the  umbrella organization for local Committees  of 
Correspondence  on  Evolution,  must be  supported.  
The NCSE (Box 9477, Berkeley, CA 94709) is fighting 
for  improvements  in  science  education.    Local 
chapters  have  been quite successful  in  fighting 
fundamentalist inroads into the science curricula.

Third,  we  must monitor public  school  textbooks.  
When  poor books are used or proposed,  members  of 
the  appropriate state or local committees must  be 
informed.  Pressure may also be applied directly to 
the   publishing   companies.     Clearly,    these 
activities are going to take time and effort;  time 
and   effort  that  could  be  spent  on  our   own 
research.  Let us learn from the mistakes after the 
Scope  victory:  another such  victory  might  mark 
the  end  of meaningful evolution education in  our 
public schools.
