It seems like the phrase "teach the controversy" has become a popular response nowadays for those who disagree with popular scientific theories.
If I'm allowed to have an opinion on topics in sports, politics and religion, why can't I do the same in science?
Unfortunately, that's just not how science works, and teaching kids to think that way is harmful in more ways than one.
A population of scientifically illiterate individuals allows for the spread of fantastic and dangerously misleading ideas, some of which can be fatal.
Take, for example, the not-so-recent debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye.
Ham, a Young Earth Creationist, used the platform to portray evolution as an embattled theory in the scientific community. He even had a variety of scientists, some with Ph. Ds in microbiology from esteemed universities, on film endorsing his arguments.
These highly educated and peer reviewed scientists were the cornerstones for his idea that there is somehow a "controversy" that needs to be taught on the subject of evolution.
Though it's a fallacious idea, it's an easy tactic to bring in "scientists who doubt said theory" to show there is a controversy. Yet, it is easily outdone.
In response to a list of 700 scientists who denied evolution, Project Steve was founded in 2003 to show just how small the percentage of evolution deniers was in the scientific community.
The light-hearted list, which is only composed of scientists named Steve, has collected 1,328 signatures over the last decade, a significant feat considering "Steves" are only representative of approximately 1 percent of the scientific community.
Despite the overwhelming evidence and support, a recent poll showed that 33 percent of Americans still do not believe in evolution.
That's about 99,000,000 people, equivalent to the entire population of the Philippines, who do not believe in a basic tenet of biology.
So, why should all this scientific literacy stuff matter to you? I mean, a lack of knowledge about evolution and science isn't actually fatal, right?
Directly, it's not. But if a third of our country's population is still in denial about one of the most widely supported scientific theories or like the one involving vaccine use in children?
Despite little to no evidence (except from the Jenny McCarthy, of course), the idea that vaccine use causes autism still lingers, prompting some families to forego critical vaccines in children for illnesses like measles, the flu and hepatitis.
People who think vaccine use is linked to autism are certainly in the minority, but since 2007, 1,375 deaths from vaccine-preventable deaths have been reported to the CDC.
Science is a forum for argument, skepticism and tinkering. No theory is safe from future research that could turn our understanding of a process upside down.
But "teaching the controversy" on topics that have a solid scientific consensus isn't just bad for scientific literacy, it creates a mindset of distrust about the methods and discoveries of hard working scientists who work to fix the variety of dangers facing humanity.
There's nothing wrong with holding unpopular opinions on a subject, but when it comes to science, there's generally a reason those opinions are in the minority.
Do you like this story? The Plainsman doesn't accept money from tuition or student fees, and we don't charge a subscription fee. But you can donate to support The Plainsman.
