This year marks the centennial of the notorious Scopes trial, held in 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee, over the question of whether a state could ban the teaching of e – – – – – – – – (rhymes with “revolution”) in its public schools.

This month the people of Iowa caught a whiff of that episode as a result of a proposed revision to state standards on science education in Iowa schools.

The current standard for Iowa public school students in grades 9 through 12 specifically uses the word “e – – – – – – – -“ in its biology section subtitled “Unity and Diversity.” The standard states that students who demonstrate understanding of the topic can “communicate scientific information that common ancestry and biological e – – – – – – – – are supported by multiple lines of empirical evidence.”

It adds that the students can “construct an explanation based on evidence that the process of e – – – – – – – – primarily results from four factors . . . ,” and then lists the four factors in detail.

The first draft of the Iowa Department of Education’s revision of that section substitutes the phrase “biological change” for “e – – – – – – – -“ whenever “e – – – – – – – -“ currently raises its head.

There’s no logical reason for the change. If “biological change” means the same thing, why not use the universally understood designation of “e – – – – – – – -?”

The only reason for the proposed change is that the concept of “e – – – – – – – -” is objectionable to a religious minority of Iowans. Therefore the term should be excised from official terminology.

The 1925 Scopes trial, officially The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes, found Scopes, a Dayton High School science teacher, guilty of violating Tennessee’s “Butler Act,” which prohibited teaching e – – – – – – – – in public schools. The district court fined him $100 (the equivalent of $1,700 in 2025 dollars), but the Tennessee Supreme Court overturned the judgment on a technicality.

A 37-member committee of individuals with relevant science and education backgrounds worked on Iowa’s new proposed standards. But after the committee submitted its recommendations, someone or someones in the Department of Education (or higher up) eliminated all references to “e – – – – – – – -.” The committee had left that word unchanged, but the new draft substituted the term “biological change” throughout.

Many committee members were surprised that the department changed their recommended wording. Some spoke in opposition to the change during a public forum this month.

(Note: the new proposed science standard, as stated by the Department, also would substitute “climate trends” for the phrase “climate c – – – – -“—rhymes with “range”. Similar reason.)

A 1968 U.S. Supreme Court decision in a case entitled Epperson v. Arkansas has relevance to the Iowa situation. Epperson arose from an Arkansas law that prohibited the teaching of human evolution in its public schools.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled otherwise. The majority opinion found that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits a state from requiring “that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma.” (Justice Hugo Black concurred in the decision, but issued his own rationale.)

Thereafter some jurisdictions decided to require the teaching of “creation science” alongside e – – – – – – – – if e – – – – – – – – was being taught. But In 1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court ruled that practice unconstitutional as well.

The state of Iowa follows a phased-in process in revising educational standards. The revision committee’s recommendations are submitted to the Department of Education, which then collects public comment on the proposals. Dozens of Iowans have already given their opinions to the state agency on the deletion of word “e – – – – – – – -.” The deadline for submitting feedback is February 3.

Then the department will name a second standards review team, which will examine the feedback and recommend changes to the standards, with the comments as a factor. The second standards team will present its recommendation to the Department of Education, which in turn will present its recommendation to the State Board of Education. At that point there will be another chance for public feedback, and at a “final read” the board will decide what standards will be adopted.

To repeat: the proposed change to the Iowa science education standard doesn’t change what should be taught, other than to suggest the word “e – – – – – – – -“ should not be used.

To put it bluntly, the State Board of Education’s final decision will provide a clue as to how much power conservative Christians wield in Iowa government.