Editorial viewpoints from Climate Central's writers and editors.

Climate in Tennessee is Ripe for More Monkey Business

By Michael D. Lemonick

It’s time to break out the monkey jokes: the State of Tennessee, which earned a reputation for backwardness back in the 1925 with the celebrated Scopes Monkey Trial, appears to be doing it again — on first blush, anyway. The original trial tested a law that forbade the teaching of “any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.” A teacher named John Thomas Scopes accepted a casting call from the American Civil Liberties Union to test the law, was indicted, and was eventually convicted. You’ve probably seen the movie.

Now it appears to some that Tennessee is at it again. The state has enacted a law giving teachers free reign to talk about alternatives, not just to evolution, but also to the idea that human-generated greenhouse gases are altering the climate. The state’s Republican governor, Bill Haslam, had refused to sign the bill, “Good legislation should bring clarity and not confusion,’’ he told Reuters. "My concern is that this bill has not met this objective.’’ He also didn’t veto the bill, but any veto would easily have been overridden.

Spencer Tracy (left) and Frederic March play characters based on the real life Clarence Darrow and Williams Jennings Bryan, respectively, from the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial in the 1960 film version of "Inherit the Wind". 

So is this a problem? Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the National Center for Science Education seems to think so. “Creationist teachers,” she said Monday on public radio’s nationally syndicated Diane Rehm show, “. . . are going to say, ‘okey doke, I'm now protected by the state. I can bring in creationism.’ ” As for climate, Scott said, “[Teachers are] not out there deciding the weaknesses of thermodynamics or climate change or anything else. They need to teach the consensus view, which, right now, like it or not, happens to be that living things have common ancestors, evolution happened, and that the planet is getting warm and people have a lot to do with it.”

That’s true enough, and it’s easy to imagine that teachers skeptical about evolution or climate could use the new law as a wedge to advocate their personal beliefs, rather than generally accepted science, in the classroom. But the law doesn’t require teachers to bring up creationism or climate denial; it simply allows them to discuss critiques of mainstream science if students bring them up. “If a student asks a question about it,” Tennessee state senator Bo Watson, one of the bill’s co-sponsors told the Associated Press, “the teacher should feel comfortable in using that . . . to say ‘here's the difference between science and creationism, the difference between evolution and creationism. Here's why evolution is science's best explanation and creationism is not.’ ”

To which I say: damn you, Bo Watson. Whatever slippery slope Scott and the ACLU feel Tennessee has stepped onto (and it may well have), and whatever the legislature might secretly hope to accomplish, this is hard to argue with. Challenges to evolution are way off on the fringe these days, far beyond any legitimate scientific discourse (in 2005, a federal judge labeled a Pennsylvania school board’s policy of requiring the teaching of intelligent design “breathtaking inanity”). The number of serious scientists who doubt evolution is essentially zero.

It’s not quite that clear cut with climate change, however, and skeptics have been successful at raising objections that seem plausible to those who don't know better (“It’s the Sun.” “Global warming stopped in 1998.” “Carbon dioxide is necessary for plants, so it can’t be a pollutant”). Kids hear these assertions all the time, but they don’t necessarily hear what’s wrong with them. If the new law encourages teachers to address these popular misconceptions in the classroom, so much the better. 

Of course, there wasn’t anything keeping them from addressing climate-science misconceptions anyway, which is why Gov. Haslam rightly asserted that the law doesn’t change anything, or not explicitly, anyway. The number of climate scientists who doubt the mainstream view on climate change is vanishingly small, but the number of people who are actively hostile to that view — including some with a pretty high profile, albeit little expertise — is substantial. It wouldn’t be shocking to learn that a fair number of science teachers are in that category.

Which is why Scott and the others are right to suspect that there’s probably a fair amount of monkey business behind the new law after all.

« Commentary


By dan in illinois
on April 12th, 2012

If the facts are as self-evident with both Global Warming and evolution as you seem to think they are, why do you care if this “backward state” chooses to foolishly go ahead and question the truth of these theories?

Reply to this comment

By Wes (Arizona)
on April 12th, 2012

Well, Dan, it’s because we think that the children deserve better. They should be able to learn accurate information about the subjects that they study to become informed citizens. They should be able to trust their teachers to tell them the truth. The United States needs an informed citizenry to meet the challenges of the future, and Tenn isn’t helping.

Reply to this comment

By dan in illinois
on April 12th, 2012

I bet the priests and professors who believed that Galileo was guilty of heresy felt the same way.

Reply to this comment

By Brandt Hardin (Clarksville, TN 37043)
on April 12th, 2012

This law turns the clock back nearly 100 years here in the seemingly unprogressive South and is simply embarrassing. There is no argument against the Theory of Evolution other than that of religious doctrine. The Monkey Law only opens the door for fanatic Christianity to creep its way back into our classrooms. You can see my visual response as a Tennessean to this absurd law on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/04/pulpit-in-classroom-biblical-agenda-in.html with some evolutionary art and a little bit of simple logic.

Reply to this comment

By dan in illinois
on April 12th, 2012


I believe that the Theory of Evolution postulates that random mutations in a species are selected naturally by the species’ environment.  Is that right?  The mutation is either beneficial, in which case that mutation is possibly preserved, when the animal mates with a member of the species with the same mutation and their offspring may then have that mutation and will likely thrive due to the beneficial change; or it is not beneficial, in which case the mutation will disappear from the species.

Because the process is random and therefore lots of these random mutations will not be beneficial, there must therefore be a huge number of mutations occurring in all species so that the occasional “good” mutation occurs.  Yet, where are the cows being born with wings, the monkeys being born with gills, the fish being born with feathers, and the millions of other “non-beneficial” mutations that must occur just so that the once-in-a-blue-moon beneficial mutation occurs.  And, of course, if it turns out that the cow having wings is a beneficial mutation, that cow will have to mate with another cow that has wings, or at least a cow whose ancestor had wings, in order to carry on the trait.  Yet, no such mutations ever occur.  The theory seems ludicrous to me.  Am I missing something?

Sorry, I don’t have any art to accompany my post.

Reply to this comment

Name (required):
Email (required):
Enter the word "climate" in the box below:

[+] View our comment guidelines.

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment will not appear until reviewed by Climate Central staff. Thank you for your patience.