DOCSLIB.ORG

Molly Graber

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Molly Graber The Evolution of Evolution: Teaching Alternative Theories of Origin in Public Science Classrooms By William J. Palmer High School 27 April 2014 IBMYP Government – Mr. Schulzki (Period 2) 1776 Words 1 Guiding Question: To what extent should alternative theories of origin – such as intelligent design – be incorporated in standardized, public school curricula? And, how is this in keeping with Constitutional rights? Section A: Problem to be addressed There is much debate as to whether theories that are alternate to evolution, such as intelligent design and creationism, should be taught in public schools, and if these can justifiably be added to a standardized science curriculum. Both sides question the constitutionality of the opposition’s view. Many say that including evolution in these curricula, and not other theories of origin, violates the First Amendment’s freedom of religion. Others, however, claim that this addition infringes upon the Constitution’s implied separation of church and state. To resolve this issue in a way that is consistent among all states, non-scientific based theories should be excluded from standardized science curricula, and offered only in courses clearly distinguished as religious studies. “Intelligent Design Has a Place in the Classroom” Joe Loconte All Things Considered December 21, 2005 Joe Loconte’s commentary, titled “Intelligent Design Has a Place in the Classroom,” was written as a reaction to district court judge John Jones’ ruling in a Pennsylvania case. This case involved a proposal of legislation that would require Dover biology teachers to read a disclaimer to its students “supporting alternatives to evolution.”1 This disclaimer would make students aware of the “gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution 1 Joe Loconte, ”Commentary: Intelligent design has a place in the classroom,” All Things Considered, Dec 21, 2005, web.ebscohost.com/pov. 2 including, but not limited to, intelligent design.” 2 Judge Jones ruled that this disclaimer violates the US Constitution. Loconte thinks that these rulings should not be the last word on the possibility of including intelligent design in classrooms.3 He writes as an advocate for this stance. Although this source has value due to its relevance within modern evolution- creationism court cases, it is very short and lacks sufficient explanation and justification. “The Latest Face of Creationism” Scientific American Glenn Branch, and Eugenie C. Scott, January 2009 The article “The Latest Face of Creationism” was published in Scientific American as part of the evolution special edition. Authors Branch and Scott claim that those fighting for creationism and intelligent design in the classroom are “hiding their true aims under ever changing guises.”4 These creationists, as they explain, often use vaguely worded proposals of legislation to incorporate creationism in public schools, while still getting around the Establishment Clause of the first amendment.5 This source gives many well-written descriptions of modern and historical court cases on this topic. It also addresses the constitutionality of varying outcomes of these cases. Because it is from a scientific publication, however, it is written with the assumption of evolution as proven biological concept. Section B: Current arguments For centuries, humans have been debating theories of their own origin. Although both new and old theories are now accepted – seemingly without too much conflict – the role of 2 United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Tammy Kitzmiller v. The Dover Area School District, 2005, 1. 3 Loconte, Intelligent Design has a Place in the Classroom. 4 Glenn Branch, and Eugenie C. Scott, "The Latest Face of Creationism," 92. 5 Ibid., 94. 3 government, the constitution, and public services within this debate is still contentious. Since Charles Darwin’s introduction of the concept of natural selection and its implications on the origins of mankind, there have been endless debates about how these ideas fit in with previously held beliefs. One of the first moves to define the place of evolution within the classroom was Tennessee’s Butler Act, which outlawed the teaching of Darwin’s theory.6 Under this act, teacher John T. Scopes was prosecuted in 1925.7 It was not until the late 1960s, however, that such laws were ruled unconstitutional in the Supreme Court case of Epperson v. Arkansas.8 Eventually, many realized that evolution could not be kept out of the classroom, and they instead turned towards presenting theories such as creationism and intelligent design as scientific alternatives, and demanded that they be taught along side Darwin’s theory. As the National Center for Science Education’s Branch and Scott explain, “by the early 1980s legislation calling for equal time for creation science had been introduced in no fewer than 27 states.”9 In 1981, Louisiana passed a law that required teachers to teach creationism, if they mentioned evolution. This legislation – the Balanced Treatment Act for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act – was one of many such acts proposed in Louisiana.10 In 1987, however, the Supreme Court ruled that this act violated the Establishment Clause of the first amendment.11 6 Glenn Branch, and Eugenie C. Scott, "The Latest Face of Creationism," Scientific American, January 2009, 94. 7 Ibid., 94. 8 Ibid., 94. 9 Ibid., 94. 10 Ibid., 94. 11 Ibid., 94. 4 There have recently been many other cases and proposed legislation along these lines, yet their consequences in education have not been quite as apparent. Passage of the federal 2001 No Child Left Behind Act mandated science standards in all states, thereby creating a new “battlefield” for this age-old argument.12 In 2004, a Georgia judge ruling required a county to remove disclaimer stickers from public school textbooks. These stickers presented the possibility of “holes” in evolution evidence, and posited alternative ideas such as creation- science and intelligent design.13 A year later in South Carolina, Republican Senator Mike Fair filed a bill that would require schools to expose science students to a variety of theories, and encourage critical analysis of science concepts.14 In Pennsylvania the same year, a former school board member testified to a federal court that the board had for years been pushing for the inclusion of creationism within its science standards and criteria.15 Later, the United Stated District Court for Middle Pennsylvania ruled, in the case Kitzmiller v. The Dover Area School District, that requiring biology teachers to read a disclaimer informing students of problems with the theory of evolution and the possibility of other theories such as intelligent design violates the first amendment of the Constitution.16 Also in 2005, then President Bush endorsed the teaching of creationism alongside evolution.17 12 Ibid., 94. 13 Christina Lee Knauss, ”Evolution debate evolves in South Carolina,” The State, Aug 6, 2005, web.ebscohost.com/pov. 14 Ibid. 15 Amy Worden, ”Some on school board pushed for creationism, former member says,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, Sep 27, 2005, web.ebscohost.com/pov. 16 Glenn Branch, and Eugenie C. Scott, "The Latest Face of Creationism," Scientific American, January 2009, 94. United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Tammy Kitzmiller v. The Dover Area School District, 2005, 1. 17 Ron Hutcheson,”Bush endorses teaching `intelligent design' theory in schools,” Knight Ridder Tribune Washington Bureau, Aug 1, 2005, web.ebscohost.com/pov. 5 In June of 2008, Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal signed the Science Education Act into law.18 This act calls for the critique of scientific theories being studied. Although sounding innocent, this act potentially opens the door for creationism in the classroom.19 What needs to be done Although the introduction of theories of evolution caused much controversy at the time, these issues and debates are even more pertinent in the current political scene. As the United States becomes ever more technologically based, there is a greater emphasis on both science and education in general. Legislation and acts – such as No Child Left Behind – that aim to reform and standardize public schooling have created a crucial new chapter in the debate over the teaching of alternative theories of origin. This battlefield is only widened more by the recent transition to Obama’s administration. With a new leader, advocates from all sides of these debates are hoping for another chance at passing legislation to support their cause. Of the multitude of cases and acts regarding creation-science education that have occurred within the past century, almost all were challenged with the question of the constitutionality of both arguments. Advocates of alternative-theory education often declare that they are defending academic freedom, and freedom of speech in general. This argument, however, is very weak when faced with that of its opposition. The teaching of alternative theories such as creationism and intelligent design is, as advocates claim, a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and its implied separation of church and state.20 Although public school science standards are controlled primarily by the states, the 18 Glenn Branch, and Eugenie C. Scott, "The Latest Face of Creationism," Scientific American, January 2009, 94. 19 Ibid., 94. 20 Ibid., 94. 6 unconstitutionality of acts passed by state legislatures (that allow, promote,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Threat to Geoscience Education: Creationist Anti-Evolution Activity in Canada Jason R
    Document generated on 10/02/2021 4:16 p.m. Geoscience Canada A Threat to Geoscience Education: Creationist Anti-Evolution Activity in Canada Jason R. Wiles Volume 33, Number 3, September 2006 Article abstract The rejection of biological and geological evolution is a pervasive problem in URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/geocan33_3com01 science education. Recent events in the United States have brought anti-evolution activity to the forefront in media coverage of science education, See table of contents but Canadians are often unaware that such creationist, anti-evolution activity is present in Canada as well. In this article, various foreign and Canadian-based anti-evolution efforts that threaten biology and geoscience education are Publisher(s) discussed. These creationist organizations and their activities may adversely influence Canadian science curricula and public understanding of evolution The Geological Association of Canada and science in general. ISSN 0315-0941 (print) 1911-4850 (digital) Explore this journal Cite this article Wiles, J. R. (2006). A Threat to Geoscience Education: Creationist Anti-Evolution Activity in Canada. Geoscience Canada, 33(3), 135–140. All rights reserved © The Geological Association of Canada, 2006 This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit (including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be viewed online. https://apropos.erudit.org/en/users/policy-on-use/ This article is disseminated and preserved by Érudit. Érudit is a non-profit inter-university consortium of the Université de Montréal, Université Laval, and the Université du Québec à Montréal. Its mission is to promote and disseminate research.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship Washington University Law Review Volume 83 Issue 1 2005 Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution Matthew J. Brauer Princeton University Barbara Forrest Southeastern Louisiana University Steven G. Gey Florida State University Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Education Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Religion Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, and Steven G. Gey, Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution, 83 WASH. U. L. Q. 1 (2005). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol83/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Washington University Law Quarterly VOLUME 83 NUMBER 1 2005 IS IT SCIENCE YET?: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM AND THE CONSTITUTION MATTHEW J. BRAUER BARBARA FORREST STEVEN G. GEY* TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Eugenie Scott
    Expert Witness Statement by Eugenie C. Scott Contents: 1. Qualifications as an Expert Witness 2. The Nature of Science 3. The Scientific Meaning of “Theory” and “Fact” 4. History of the Creationism/Evolution Controversy Definitions: evolution, creationism, creation science Fundamentalism; Banning Evolution Creation Science “Evidence Against Evolution” and Creation Science Evolution of Creation Science Into Intelligent Design “Theory Not Fact” Policies Are Promoted By Creationists to Denigrate Evolution and Advance Creationism 5. History of Creationism in Georgia 6. History of Creationism in Cobb County 7. “Theory Not Fact” Policies are Pedagogically Harmful Respectfully submitted: Date: November 17, 2006 _________________________ Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D., D.Sc. 420 40th St #2 Oakland, CA 94609 1. Qualifications My name is Eugenie C. Scott. My curriculum vitae is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit A. I have a Ph.D. in physical anthropology from the University of Missouri and honorary doctorates (D.Sc.) from McGill University, Ohio State University, and Mt. Holyoke College. In December 2006, I will receive an honorary doctorate from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and in May 2007, from Rutgers University. I am the Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) in Oakland, California. NCSE is a nonprofit membership organization of scientists and others that defends the teaching of evolution in the public schools. NCSE is affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The NCSE monitors the creationism/evolution controversy and maintains an archive of information on the recent history of the controversy, including materials relevant to the history of the creationism/evolution controversy in Cobb County.
    [Show full text]
  • Interview with Glenn Branch
    Interview with Glenn Branch Interview with Glenn Branch 1 Heslley Machado Silva 1Centro Universitário de Formiga (UNIFOR-MG) Glenn Branch is the deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, where his work involves organizing resistance to attempts to undermine the teaching of socially but not scientifically controversial topics, such as evolution and climate change. He received the Evolution Education Award for 2020 from the National Association of Biology Teachers. He has written extensively about evolution and climate education, and threats to them, for scholarly journals, reference works, and popular magazines: his “The latest face of creationism,” written with Eugenie C. Scott, was translated as “Manobras mais recentes do criacionismo,” Scientific American Brasil 2009; 81: 82– 89. With Scott, he edited Not In Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design is Wrong For Our Schools (2006). Branch is currently also coordinating NCSE’s survey research program, which recently produced a major publication: Eric Plutzer, Glenn Branch, and Ann Reid, “Teaching evolution in U.S. public schools: A continuing Photograph: Bob Melton challenge,” Evolution: Education and Outreach 2020; 13(14). 6| P á g i n a Conexão Ci. | Formiga/MG | Vol. 15 | Nº 4 |p. 6-5 | 2020 Interview with Glenn Branch 1. Tell us a little about the role of the [intelligent design] cannot uncouple itself from its National Center for Science Education, the non- creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.” The governmental organization (NGO) in the USA intelligent design movement never really recovered where you work. What is its scope? from the blow. In the wake of Kitzmiller v. Dover, attacks on evolution in public education have NCSE was founded in the early 1980s, to serve increasingly eschewed calling for creationism to be as a national resource for grassroots organizations taught, instead favoring the strategy of belittling resisting the attempts to impose creation science— evolution.
    [Show full text]
  • Should Students Be Able to Opt out of Evolution? Some Philosophical Considerations
    Evo Edu Outreach (2010) 3:163–169 DOI 10.1007/s12052-010-0222-4 EDUCATION ARTICLE Should Students Be Able to Opt Out of Evolution? Some Philosophical Considerations Robert T. Pennock Published online: 21 April 2010 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010 Abstract One new development in the ongoing creationism/ was going to hurt Alberta’s international image and make it evolution controversy has been the proposal to institute opt- “sound like Arkansas.” (CBC News 2009a) out policies that would allow creationist parents to exempt A similar controversy had arisen in the United States their children from any instruction involving evolution. By in Oklahoma earlier in the year. A proposed “Science way of an explanation of some of the philosophical issues at Education and Academic Freedom Act,” which followed play in the debate over evolution and the nature of science, the script of other so-called “Academic Freedom” bills that this article shows the educational folly of such policies. If Intelligent Design Creationists (IDCs) were lobbying for, evolution is taught properly, it should not be possible to opt included language that said students could not be “penalized out of it without opting out of biology. Moreover, if Intelligent in any way because [they] subscribe to a particular position” Design creationist criticisms of evolution and scientific on scientific theories. The key aim of the bill was to allow naturalism were taken as the basis for opting out, then the creationist material that would critique evolution and other effect would be even more radical and would require opting scientific theories, and opponents of the bill pointed out that out of science entirely.
    [Show full text]
  • An Evolving Controversy: the Struggle to Teach Science In
    An Evolving Controversy The Struggle to Teach Science in Science Classes By Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer Like many researchers who are interested in K–12 education, we are overall very pleased with the proposed Framework and are veryone from President Obama to the average parent eager to see it developed into a new set of standards to guide seems to agree that the STEM fields—science, technol- instruction.* And yet, as political scientists who have studied ogy, engineering, and mathematics—are critical to the America’s long-running debate over teaching evolution versus nation’s future. But, according to the National Research creationism, we bring a unique perspective to the question of ECouncil, “too few U.S. workers have strong backgrounds in these implementing any new standards based on the Framework. We fields, and many people lack even fundamental knowledge of have not only examined the history of the evolution debate as well them.” The only solution is “a new approach to K–12 science edu- as ongoing polls of public opinion, but also conducted a nation- cation in the United States.”1 Last year, the Council took the lead ally representative survey of how high school biology teachers in developing that new approach when it released A Framework deal with evolution in the classroom. We see a rough road ahead for K–12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and for teachers. CH Core Ideas. Our findings are relevant to all K–12 science instruction because the widespread adoption of standards based on the Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer are both professors in the Department Framework will make evolutionary biology much more salient for of Political Science at Pennsylvania State University.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligent Design's Trajectory After Dover
    University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy Volume 4 Issue 1 Fall 2009 Article 8 January 2009 Leap of Faith: Intelligent Design's Trajectory after Dover Joshua Rosenau Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.stthomas.edu/ustjlpp Part of the First Amendment Commons, Law and Philosophy Commons, and the Religion Law Commons Recommended Citation Joshua Rosenau, Leap of Faith: Intelligent Design's Trajectory after Dover, 4 U. ST. THOMAS J.L. & PUB. POL'Y 278 (2009). Available at: https://ir.stthomas.edu/ustjlpp/vol4/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UST Research Online and the University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy. For more information, please contact the Editor-in-Chief at [email protected]. LEAP OF FAITH: INTELLIGENT DESIGN'S TRAJECTORY AFTER DOVER JOSHUA ROSENAU* Here on these cliffs ofDover So high you can't see over And while your head is spinning Hold tight, it'sjust beginning -The Decemberists, "We Both Go Down Together"' With the failure of Intelligent Design (ID) in Kitzmiller v. Dover,2 the questions stand: what will be next in the creationism-evolution conflict? Can ID overcome the evidence and legal arguments that sank it in Dover, Pennsylvania? Will a new strategy emerge? And if so, will that successor fare any better than ID, creation science, or biblical creationism before that? To address these questions, Part I of this article examines the history of creationism and the ID movement. Part II gives specific attention to the Kitzmiller3 case and examines whether the ruling was, as critics argue, overbroad and incorrect in its conclusions about whether ID is science or creationism.
    [Show full text]
  • The Latest Face of Creationism in the Classroom
    Scientific American Magazine - December 16, 2008 The Latest Face of Creationism in the Classroom Creationists who want religious ideas taught as scientific fact in public schools continue to adapt to courtroom defeats by hiding their true aims under ever changing guises By Glenn Branch and Eugenie C. Scott Professors routinely give advice to students but usually while their charges are still in school. Arthur Landy, a distinguished professor of molecular and cell biology and biochemistry at Brown University, recently decided, however, that he had to remind a former premed student of his that “without evolution, modern biology, including medicine and biotechnology, wouldn’t make sense.” The sentiment was not original with Landy, of course. Thirty-six years ago geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky, a major contributor to the foundations of modern evolutionary theory, famously told the readers of The American Biology Teacher that “nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution.” Back then, Dobzhansky was encouraging biology teachers to present evolution to their pupils in spite of religiously motivated opposition. Now, however, Landy was addressing Bobby Jindal—the governor of the state of Louisiana—on whose desk the latest antievolution bill, the so-called Louisiana Science Education Act, was sitting, awaiting his signature. Remembering Jindal as a good student in his genetics class, Landy hoped that the governor would recall the scientific importance of evolution to biology and medicine. Joining Landy in his opposition to
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Creation Science and Intelligent Design Review of Huskinson, B
    Branch Evo Edu Outreach (2021) 14:11 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-021-00150-2 Evolution: Education and Outreach BOOK REVIEW Open Access Understanding creation science and intelligent design Review of Huskinson, B. 2020. American Creationism, Creation Science, and Intelligent Design in the Evangelical Market. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham (Switzerland) Glenn Branch* Abstract In American Creationism, Creation Science, and Intelligent Design in the Evangelical Market, Benjamin Huskinson pre- sents a close examination of the two main American sociopolitical movements launched in opposition to evolution during the second half of the twentieth century: creation science and intelligent design. Despite a failure of a central argument and a handful of errors, the book is a welcome and valuable interrogation of the stereotypes of American creationism. Keywords: Creationism, Creation science, Intelligent design Benjamin Huskinson’s book, apparently based on his 2018 particularly piquant discussion, he examines the federal dissertation at Queen’s University Belfast, presents a close tax returns for 1997–2015 of the largest creation science examination of the two main American sociopolitical organizations, concluding that the Institute for Crea- movements launched in opposition to evolution during tion Research and Answers in Genesis are growing at the the second half of the twentieth century: creation science expense of their smaller rivals, with the latter, newer, and intelligent design. “Creation science was developed as organization experiencing the most growth, thanks to its a response to perceived threats to evangelical orthodoxy” multimillion-dollar tourist attractions. Owing to increas- (p. 108), he emphasizes, not as a rival position to balance ing secularization and education, adverse judicial deci- the teaching of evolution in the public schools—although sions, and the rise of the internet, however, he suspects it was so advanced in short order.
    [Show full text]
  • The Latest Face of Creationism
    The Latest Face of Creationism Creationists who want religious ideas taught as scientifi c fact in public schools continue to adapt to courtroom defeats by hiding their true aims under ever changing guises • • • BY GLENN BRANCH & EUGENIE C. SCOTT rofessors routinely give advice to students but national spotlight as a state that pursues politics usually while their charges are still in school. over science and education,” and the American Arthur Landy, a distinguished professor of Association for the Advancement of Science, molecular and cell biology and biochemistry at which told Jindal that the law would “unleash Brown University, recently decided, however, an assault against scienti! c integrity.” Earlier, that he had to remind a former premed student the National Association of Biology Teachers of his that “without evolution, modern biology, had urged the legislature to defeat the bill, plead- including medicine and biotechnology, wouldn’t ing “that the state of Louisiana not allow its sci- make sense.” ence curriculum to be weakened by encouraging The sentiment was not original with Landy, the utilization of supplemental materials pro- KEY CONCEPTS of course. Thirty-six years ago geneticist Theo- duced for the sole purpose of confusing students dosius Dobzhansky, a major contributor to the about the nature of science.” ● Creationists continue to foundations of modern evolutionary theory, fa- But all these protests were of no avail. On agitate against the teaching of evolution in public mously told the readers of The American Biol- June 26, 2008, the governor’s of! ce announced schools, adapting their ogy Teacher that “nothing in biology makes that Jindal had signed the Louisiana Science Ed- tactics to match the road- sense, except in the light of evolution.” Back ucation Act into law.
    [Show full text]
  • Leap of Faith: Intelligent Design's Trajectory After Dover Joshua Rosenau
    University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy Volume 4 Article 8 Issue 1 Fall 2009 Leap of Faith: Intelligent Design's Trajectory after Dover Joshua Rosenau Follow this and additional works at: http://ir.stthomas.edu/ustjlpp Part of the First Amendment Commons, Law and Philosophy Commons, and the Religion Law Commons Bluebook Citation Joshua Rosenau, Leap of Faith: Intelligent Design's Trajectory after Dover, 4 U. St. Thomas J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 278 (2009). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UST Research Online and the University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy. For more information, please contact Editor-in-Chief Patrick O'Neill. LEAP OF FAITH: INTELLIGENT DESIGN'S TRAJECTORY AFTER DOVER JOSHUA ROSENAU* Here on these cliffs ofDover So high you can't see over And while your head is spinning Hold tight, it'sjust beginning -The Decemberists, "We Both Go Down Together"' With the failure of Intelligent Design (ID) in Kitzmiller v. Dover,2 the questions stand: what will be next in the creationism-evolution conflict? Can ID overcome the evidence and legal arguments that sank it in Dover, Pennsylvania? Will a new strategy emerge? And if so, will that successor fare any better than ID, creation science, or biblical creationism before that? To address these questions, Part I of this article examines the history of creationism and the ID movement. Part II gives specific attention to the Kitzmiller3 case and examines whether the ruling was, as critics argue, overbroad and incorrect in its conclusions about whether ID is science or creationism.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Design in Science Classrooms
    Biological design in science classrooms Eugenie C. Scott* and Nicholas J. Matzke National Center for Science Education, Inc., 420 40th Street #2, Oakland, CA 94609-2509 Although evolutionary biology is replete with explanations for teaching evolution was not overturned. Other states and many complex biological structures, scientists concerned about evolution local jurisdictions enacted laws or policies that discouraged or education have been forced to confront ‘‘intelligent design’’ (ID), forbade the teaching of evolution, and evolution rapidly disap- which rejects a natural origin for biological complexity. The con- peared from high school textbooks. tent of ID is a subset of the claims made by the older ‘‘creation Evolution was not part of the precollege curriculum for 40 science’’ movement. Both creationist views contend that highly years, until fears of technologically falling behind the Soviet complex biological adaptations and even organisms categorically Union led in the late 1950s to federal money for new science cannot result from natural causes but require a supernatural textbooks—unusually for the time, written by scientists (4). The creative agent. Historically, ID arose from efforts to produce a form Biological Sciences Curriculum Study’s series of biology text- of creationism that would be less vulnerable to legal challenges books reintroduced evolution. The Arkansas Education Associ- and that would not overtly rely upon biblical literalism. Scientists ation, concerned about teachers being caught between a state do not use ID to explain nature, but because it has support from ban on evolution and district requirements to use textbooks that outside the scientific community, ID is nonetheless contributing included evolution, challenged the state’s antievolution law.
    [Show full text]