Uncovering the Impact of a Deleted Term in Iowa’s Proposed Science Education Standards

This year is the 100th anniversary of the famous Scopes trial from 1925. This trial debated whether a state could prohibit the teaching of evolution in its public schools.

Recently, Iowans have revisited a similar issue with proposed changes to science education standards. The current Iowa standard for high school biology clearly mentions evolution. It requires students to understand common ancestry and how evolution is supported by solid scientific evidence.

However, the first draft of revisions from the Iowa Department of Education suggests replacing “evolution” with “biological change.” This change raises questions. If both terms mean the same thing, why not stick with the universally recognized term, evolution?

The attempt to remove “evolution” seems to stem from objections by a small group of religious individuals in Iowa. This suggests a push to avoid conflict, rather than uphold scientific integrity.

The Scopes trial involved a high school teacher named John Scopes, who was convicted for teaching evolution, violating Tennessee’s Butler Act. He was fined $100, which would be about $1,700 today. Although his conviction was later overturned, the trial highlighted the clash between science and religion in education.

A committee of scientists and educators worked on Iowa’s proposed standards, aiming for accuracy in teaching. After their suggestions, the Department of Education mysteriously altered the language, replacing every mention of evolution with “biological change.” Many committee members were surprised and voiced their opposition during a recent public discussion.

Interestingly, this is not the first time the topic of evolution has stirred controversy. A landmark Supreme Court case from 1968, Epperson v. Arkansas, ruled that banning the teaching of evolution in public schools violated the First Amendment. This case confirmed that education should not be dictated by religious beliefs. Later, in 1987, another ruling, Edwards v. Aguillard, deemed it unconstitutional to teach creation science alongside evolution.

Iowa’s process for revising educational standards is thorough. After public input on the initial draft, a second review team will consider feedback and revise the standards accordingly. The public will have another chance to weigh in before the State Board of Education makes a final decision. Feedback on the deletion of the term “evolution” is welcome until February 3.

Ultimately, this change does not alter what students will learn in biology class. It simply suggests avoiding the term “evolution.” The outcome of this decision will reveal the influence of certain groups on Iowa’s educational system.