DOES a bill that does nothing actually do something? This is not a Zen koan, but a legislative one, being tested this month in Tennessee. The bill in question required the state’s education system to encourage students to “explore scientific questions” and “respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific subjects”. It also protected teachers against punishment for “helping students understand, analyse, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories.” It passed with big majorities in both chambers, and became law on April 10th when Bill Haslam, Tennessee’s governor, declined to veto it.
一個沒有具體措施的法案果真能“無為而治”嗎?這個本月在田納西州試行的法案可不是禪宗的公案,而是確實具有法律效力的。上述法案要求田納西州的教育制度鼓勵學生“探討科學問題”并“包容、尊重關于科學問題的不同見解”。根據法案,教師還能“幫助學生以客觀的方式理解、分析、評論及考察現存科學理論中的優缺點”而不受處罰。法案在參眾兩院以多數票獲得通過,4月10日,田納西州州長比爾-哈斯拉姆(Bill Haslam)拒絕對法案進行否決,于是該法案在當日正式生效。
At issue is whether this innocuous-sounding measure is actually a back door that would allow teachers to introduce creationism and intelligent design into science classrooms. Many are sure it is. The measure drew opposition from scientists and teachers both nationally and in Tennessee. Several Tennessee-based members of the National Academy of Sciences worry that the bill would weaken science education in the state. Around 3,200 Tennesseans signed a petition urging Mr Haslam to veto the bill. And the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) believes the measure “undermines science education in Tennessee public schools”.
目前有爭議的是,這份聽似無傷大雅法案是否真的為教師在講授科學課程時向學生灌輸創世說和智慧設計論開了后門。很多人認為確實如此。這份法案遭到了田納西州及全國各地的科學家和教師的反對。美國國家科學院中幾位來自田納西州的成員擔心法案會降低美國科學教育的質量。田納西州約有3200個人簽署了一份請愿書,力勸比爾-哈斯拉姆否決該法案。美國公民自由聯盟則認為,該法案“破壞了田納西州公立學校的科學教育”。
Supporters of the measure, such as state Senator Bo Watson, a co-sponsor, say this is alarmist poppycock. Evolution is part of Tennessee’s science curriculum, which the bill does not change. Many state and federal court cases have not only prohibited the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in public-school classrooms, but have also restrained teachers from introducing arguments against evolution in contravention of a school district’s curriculum. The original version of the bill warned that “the teaching of some scientific subjects” including “biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming and human cloning, can cause controversy”; Mr Watson cut that language out. He insists the bill is simply meant to ensure that pupils learn “critical thinking” in science classrooms.
如法案聯合倡議人、州參議員波-華森(Bo Watson)等法案支持者說那些都是危言聳聽的廢話。進化論是田納西州科學課程的一部分,該法案并沒有改變這點。之前許多州法庭和聯邦法庭的判例不但禁止在公立學校中講授創世說和智慧設計論,還不允許教師違反學區課程規定講述任何反對進化論的觀點。法案中原來有句話提醒人們注意:“講授包括生物進化論、生命的化學起源、全球變暖及人類克隆在內的一些科學題材會引起爭議”;波-華森將這一句刪去了。他堅稱該法案僅僅是旨在確保學生們在科學課堂上學會“批判地思考”。
Josh Rosenau, of the National Centre for Science Education (NCSE), asks why the bill singles out science classrooms as a place where pupils should be urged to think critically. After all, some people believe the 1969 moon landing was faked or that the Holocaust is a hoax; why not require history teachers to inform pupils of both sides of those issues, too?
國家科學教育中心的喬希-羅西諾(Josh Rosenau)質問道,為何法案規定只應在科學課堂上鼓勵學生批判思考。要知道,有人可認為1969年人類登陸月球是假的,還有納粹大屠殺就是個騙局;何不要求歷史老師也告訴學生關于那些事件的兩種觀點?
Tennessee’s bill is not unusual: since 2004 similar measures have been offered in no fewer than 13 state legislatures. Only in one other state has one become law. Many such bills, including Tennessee’s, share a common parent: a “Model Academic Freedom Statute on Evolution” written and posted by the Discovery Institute, a conservative think-tank that has long advocated intelligent design. This measure protects teachers’ and students’ rights to present and hear “the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution,” but it does little in practice. It changes no curriculum and does not expressly lobby for creationism or intelligent design. Louisiana’s measure, which has been law for nearly four years, seems to have had no discernible effects. Instead, these bills seem a particularly successful bit of signalling. They let evolution sceptics express themselves in the right place: within the law and outside the classroom.
田納西州的這個法案并不罕見:自2004年起,至少13個州中有人向立法機構提出類似的法案,除田納西州外只有1個州的法案正式生效。這些法案中的大部分,包括田納西州的,都有一個共同起源:由探索研究所撰寫并發布的《關于進化論的學術自由法規范》。探索研究所這個立場保守的智囊長久以來都是宣揚智慧設計論的。這個法規保護了老師和學生提出、傾聽“關于生物和化學進化論的所有科學觀點”的權利,但并沒怎么落實。法規并沒有改變學校的課程,也沒有明確地為創世說或智慧設計論進行游說。路易斯安娜州的法案生效已將近4年,卻似乎沒什么明顯效果。相反,這些法案看來在傳達信息方面尤有成效,它們讓進化論懷疑者在恰當的場所表達了自己意見。所謂恰當,即法律之內,課堂之外。