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,