The 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 – 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 , 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 , 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, and even require the inclusion of creationism in science standards,) calls for national legislation.

Exposure to different ideas is considered by most to be a good thing. But recently, there has been much confusion among intelligent design advocates about what exactly science is. As the National Academy of Sciences described, “the claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted. Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.”21

Creationism advocates’ entire case rests on this fundamental misunderstanding. As biology teacher Ken Bingman explains, “they are playing on the public's lack of understanding of what a scientific theory is. It's more than a guess. It's a set of hypotheses that has been tested over time. Evolutionary theory does have gaps, but so do relativity, quantum theory and the theory of plate tectonics.”22 Whether or not alternate theories of origin are taught in schools at all, they do not belong in science classrooms.

Proposal of new law

Many of the acts recently proposed and passed by state legislatures, such as the

Louisiana Science Education Act, seem on the surface to simply promote critical thinking and a diverse education for American students. This should be done, however, in keeping with the

21 Ron Hutcheson,”Bush endorses teaching `intelligent design' theory in schools,” Knight Ridder Tribune Washington Bureau, Aug 1, 2005, web.ebscohost.com/pov. 22 Michael D Lemonick, Noah Isackson, and Jeffrey Ressner. ”Stealth Attack on Evolution,” Time, Jan 31, 2005, web.ebscohost.com/pov.

7 Constitution and the separation of church and state. Theories such as creationism can justifiably be offered in public schools, yet not as standardized science curricula. These could be offered within a religious studies or “theories of origin” course that is not required or standardized by the state. This solution is not overtly unconstitutional, and is consistent with academic freedom.

In short, the United States would benefit from legislation that prohibits the teaching of religious-based alternative theories of origin within a standardized science curriculum, while allowing these to be taught in public schools as part of an optional, non-scientific course.

States, then, would not likely attempt to pass acts that blur the federal separation of church and state.

Section C: Reflection

One of the areas of concern that I had with my paper was how politicians dealt with the issue of science and religious myth. This is an emotional topic for many and found that that the

“experts” were not always well versed in the topic. I was able to research the current laws without much difficulty, but the issue of religion kept coming up as the main argument for teaching the creationism. What was somewhat frustrating is the fact that some groups are insistent that science is not perfect so we should not believe scientists. The limitations I faced are the same as those people who think that religion is the answer to all politics and ignore facts. It that the role of the politician or the public policy expert should be different from a blogger or journalist and it seems that I read many opinion pieces from both sides of the argument that were NOT very helpful. I think I presented a balance approach to the argument and the sources I used were helpful, and would be helpful for a politician who was trying to

8 write a law that supports the teaching of evolution in a science class; and the teaching of evolution in a class on philosophy or religion. Finally, I realized that the topic is a topic that is also one that involved the First Amendment and freedom of religion – but religion is a very difficult topic to talk about without people shouting at each other.

9 Section F: Bibliography

Branch, Glenn, and Eugenie C. Scott. "The Latest Face of Creationism." Scientific American, January 2009, 92-99.

Demartini, Alayna. ”Science teacher dissed evolution: He taught creationism, report says.” The Columbus Dispatch, Jun 20, 2008. web.ebscohost.com/pov.

Demartini, Alayna. ”Science teacher mixed religion, class: Mount Vernon school board to meet Friday to discuss case.” The Columbus Dispatch, Jun 19, 2008. web.ebscohost.com/pov.

Hutcheson, Ron. ”Bush endorses teaching `intelligent design' theory in schools.” Knight Ridder Tribune Washington Bureau, Aug 1, 2005. web.ebscohost.com/pov.

Kleindienst, Linda. ”Florida Senate committee OKs teaching of alternative theories to evolution.” Sun-Sentinel, Apr 8, 2008. web.ebscohost.com/pov.

Kleindienst, Linda. ”State Senate OKs bill allowing teachers to discuss creationism.” Sun- Sentinel, Apr 24, 2008. web.ebscohost.com/pov.

Lee Knauss, Christina. ”Evolution debate evolves in South Carolina.” The State, Aug 6, 2005. web.ebscohost.com/pov.

Lemonick, Michael D., Noah Isackson, and Jeffrey Ressner. ”Stealth Attack on Evolution.” Time, Jan 31, 2005. web.ebscohost.com/pov.

Loconte, Joe. ”Commentary: Intelligent design has a place in the classroom.” All Things Considered, Dec 21, 2005. web.ebscohost.com/pov.

Penkave, Melinda. ”Analysis: Whether the theory of Intelligent Design should be taught in the classroom.” Talk of the Nation, Feb 13, 2002. web.ebscohost.com/pov.

”They're back: The intelligent design crowd wants Ohio to consider again a place for religious faith in the science classroom.” Akron Beacon Journal, Sep 10, 2006. web.ebscohost.com/pov.

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Tammy Kitzmiller v. The Dover Area School District. 2005. Wallace Allen, Anne. ”Idaho science teachers say intelligent design doesn't belong in school.” The Idaho Statesman, Jun 27, 2007. web.ebscohost.com/pov.

Worden, Amy. ”Some on school board pushed for creationism, former member says.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, Sep 27, 2005. web.ebscohost.com/pov.

10