DOCSLIB.ORG

Intelligent Design: the New

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Intelligent Design: the New © 2009, Dustin J. Penn II. Creationists’ Opposition to Evolution "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." - Advocates of Intelligent Design Creationism, 19991 Summary Ever since Darwin, there has been opposition to evolution, and especially against applying evolutionary principles to humans. Christian fundamentalists in the USA have tried to ban evolution for decades. After failing to ban evolution, some creationists attempted to disguise creationism as a legitimate science they called "creation science" and then again later "intelligent design" (ID). Courts in the USA have ruled against teaching ID and any other forms of creationism as science, yet creationists continue trying new tactics, such as changing the definition of "science" to include religion. The public opposition to evolution in Europe is more complex than the USA, as it comes from education ministers, Catholic leaders, and Muslims, as well as Protestant Christian fundamentalists. This section provides an historical overview of creationists’ opposition to evolution in the USA and Europe. It addresses the political and legal controversies regarding the creationism- versus-evolution debates, and explains why scientists and educators generally oppose teaching creationism in science classes. Outline A. Creationists’ Opposition in the USA 1. Attempts to Ban Evolution 2. Disguising Creationism as Science 3. Intelligent Design: Creationism’s Latest Disguise 4. Re-Defining Science and Creationists’ other Tactics A. Creationists’ Opposition in the USA Evolution has been particularly controversial in the USA, where Protestant Christian fundamentalists have been trying to ban evolution or have creationism taught in public school science classes for over 80 years. In many states, courts have supported creationists’ efforts, but federal courts have so far blocked these efforts on the ground that it is unconstitutional to use public funds to promote a religion. After each defeat, however, creationists have continued to try to get creationism taught in public schools by trying disguise creationism as science. 1. Attempts to Ban Evolution A religious movement of Christian Protestant fundamentalism arose during the late 19th century, as a reaction to enlightenment thinking and modernism (i.e., the so-called "Great Awakening"). The publication of The Fundamentals (1910-1915) marked a second revival of fundamentalism among Christian Protestants. After the First World War (1914-1918), conservative Protestants attacked liberalism, and argued that evolution and other "modernist" views had turned Germans away from the Bible, and led their country into disaster. In the 1923, Oklahoma passed the first anti-evolution law, which offered free textbooks to public schools on the condition that neither their textbooks nor the teachers mention evolution. In 1925, Tennessee passed The Butler Act which made it "unlawful for any teacher in the Universities, Normals, and all other public schools of the state… to teach any theory that denies the story of the Devine [sic] Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has developed from a lower order of animals." The same year, a schoolteacher named John Scopes, was tried for teaching evolution in the famous "Scopes Trial" or "Monkey Trial". It was popularized by the play Inherit the Wind, and was made into a major Hollywood film and television film.2-4 The Scopes Trial is often thought to be a victory for evolution because it resulted in much ridicule of creationism, even though Scopes was found guilty for teaching evolution. Yet, science lost in most ways because laws banning teaching evolution remained on the books in the USA until 1967, and schools continued to ignore the topic. Figure 1 (a). Figure 1 (b). The Anti-Evolution League of America (Figure 1a) was organized by Conservative Christian Protestants in 1924, and helped to pass anti-evolution legislation. Its efforts were supported by William Jennings Bryan, the Democratic Party’s three-time nominee for President of the USA. Bryan crusaded against evolution and was the prosecuting attorney in the Scopes Trial. In the Scopes Trial, Clarence Darrow, the lawyer for the defense (left) (Figure 1b) called Bryan (right) to testify, and was able to get Bryan to admit that the earth is probably older than 6,000 years, and that the Bible needed to be interpreted metaphorically rather than literally. Since the Scopes Trial, evolution has been tried 10 times in U.S. courts, and two times by the Supreme Court. In 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws prohibiting evolution and ruled that teaching creationism in public schools would violate the constitution’s First Amendment separation between Church and State (Epperson v. Arkansas)5. Since then creationists’ have tried various ways of re-packaging creationism to get around the law. 2. Disguising Creationism as Science After failing to get evolution banned from public schools, creationists have tried to find new tactics to inject their beliefs into public schools. Rather than banning evolution, they aimed to convince people that creationism is a science they called "creation science". Creationists lobbied to get this dressed-up version of creationism into public school science classes during 1970’s and 1980’s.6 The center of creation science is the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) located in Dallas, Texas (Figure 2). Its goals are to provide scientific support for divine intervention and in the creation of the world, confirm the historical accuracy of a literal interpretation of Genesis, and provide various educational programs, including a creation museum.7 Its founders and faculty support literal interpretations of Genesis (Young Earth Creationism), and its members and researchers must adhere to the following statement: "The scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, are inerrant in relation to any subject with which they deal, and are accepted in their natural and intended sense… all things in the universe were created and made by God in the six days of special creation described in Genesis. The creationist account is accepted as factual, historical and perspicuous and is thus fundamental in the understanding of every fact and phenomenon in the created Figure 2. Institute for 8 Creation Research (ICR). universe." Despite its name, so-called "creation science" is not a science.9 Science involves only natural explanations, and requires rejecting hypotheses unsupported by evidence. In contrast, creation science dismisses any evidence that fails to confirm to a particular religious belief. For these reasons, more than 45 scientific organizations have criticized creation science (see Section VI.). Nonetheless, the creation science movement became popular in the USA during the 1980’s, and as a result many states attempted to introduce legislation to require teaching creation science. Laws were passed in Arkansas and Louisiana to require teaching creation science along with evolution, though the U.S. Supreme Court eventually overruled them: In 1981, Arkansas passed a "Balanced Treatment" Act requiring creation science to receive equal time with evolution in public schools. The next year, however, this act was over-ruled in court (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education)10. Judge Overton (U.S. District Court) concluded that creation science is "simply not science", as it failed to meet the essential characteristics of science. Moreover, he concluded that the act is "a religious crusade, coupled with a desire to conceal this fact", and violated the First amendment’s separation of Church and State. In 1982, Louisiana passed an act requiring public schools to give equal time to creation science and evolution. Lower courts concluded that the actual goal of the act was to promote a religious doctrine, but the State appealed to the Supreme Court. In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Louisiana statue is unconstitutional because creation science is not a science and instead its actual goal is to advance a particular religious belief (Edwards v. Aguillard)11. The reason for the Supreme Court’s decision is simple and clear: so-called "creation science" is not a science because it does not involve scientific research or other activities required to be an actual science. The Supreme Court’s decision against creation science was a major defeat for creationists, but creationists did not give up. 3. Intelligent Design: Creationism’s Latest Disguise Creationists have continued to find even more deceptive ways of masquerading creationism as a science in their efforts to get creationism into public schools. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against teaching "creation science", creationists adopted a different political and legal tactic: they dropped the term "creation science", and re-named their approach "intelligent design" (ID).12 The central idea of ID is that certain features of living organisms are better explained by an "intelligent designer" than by natural selection (ID advocates rarely say who the designer might be, or they say it could be God or an extraterrestrial alien). Using engineering language has helped make ID more respectable. Another reason ID has been popular is that its advocates promote the idea of teaching both ID and evolution in science classes. This "teach the controversy" argument seems reasonable to many people who are apparently unaware that ID is based on religion rather than science. Consequently, the ID movement (IDM) became very popular in the U.S. (e.g., in 2005, there were at least 17 bills in 13 states trying to introduce ID into classrooms), and it has become a global movement. In 2004, the school board in Dover attempted to force teachers to use an ID textbook, Of Panda’s and People, for teaching biology. Parents sued the school (and before the trial began, the parents ousted all members of the school board), which resulted in a lengthy trial.13 Judge Jones (a U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals
    UNDERSTANDING THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONIST MOVEMENT: ITS TRUE NATURE AND GOALS A POSITION PAPER FROM THE CENTER FOR INQUIRY OFFICE OF PUBLIC POLICY AUTHOR: BARBARA FORREST, Ph.D. Reviewing Committee: Paul Kurtz, Ph.D.; Austin Dacey, Ph.D.; Stuart D. Jordan, Ph.D.; Ronald A. Lindsay, J. D., Ph.D.; John Shook, Ph.D.; Toni Van Pelt DATED: MAY 2007 ( AMENDED JULY 2007) Copyright © 2007 Center for Inquiry, Inc. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for noncommercial, educational purposes, provided that this notice appears on the reproduced materials, the full authoritative version is retained, and copies are not altered. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the Center for Inquiry, Inc. Table of Contents Section I. Introduction: What is at stake in the dispute over intelligent design?.................. 1 Section II. What is the intelligent design creationist movement? ........................................ 2 Section III. The historical and legal background of intelligent design creationism ................ 6 Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) ............................................................................ 6 McLean v. Arkansas (1982) .............................................................................. 6 Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) ............................................................................. 7 Section IV. The ID movement’s aims and strategy .............................................................. 9 The “Wedge Strategy” .....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The 1925 Monkey Trial
    The “Monkey Trial” March 1925. • On 21st March 1925 Tennessee passed the Butler Act which stated: • That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the Story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals. Proposer of the act: John Washington Butler. Religion vs. Science. • (State Representative) John W. Butler, a Tennessee farmer and head of the World Christian Fundamentals Association, lobbied state legislatures to pass the anti-evolution law. The act is challenged. • John Thomas Scopes' involvement in the so-called Scopes Monkey Trial came about after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) announced that it would finance a test case challenging the constitutionality of the Butler Act if they could find a Tennessee teacher willing to act as a defendant. • Photograph of John Scopes taken one month before the trial. Opportunistic Bush Lawyers? • A band of businessmen in Dayton, Tennessee, led by engineer and geologist George Rappleyea, saw this as an opportunity to get publicity for their town and approached Scopes. • Rappleyea pointed out that while the Butler Act prohibited the teaching of human evolution, the state required teachers to use the assigned textbook, Hunter's Civic Biology (1914), which included a chapter on evolution. • Rappleyea argued that teachers were essentially required to break the law.
    [Show full text]
  • Where Did We Come From?
    Reading 10.2 Where Did We Come From? Lottie L. Joiner or a year, Martha Wise listened to presentations, vis- investigate and critically analyze all aspects of evolutionary ited constituents’ homes, took phone call after long theory.” The statement made Ohio the first state to require F phone call, and spent hours answering e-mail. She districts to let criticisms of evolution be examine din class- was often up until the wee hours of the morning, trying to rooms. However, a disclaimer insists that the board did not understand the latest issue dividing her state: the teaching support “the teaching or testing of intelligent design,”a the- of “intelligent design,” one of the alternative theories of the ory that the complex features of life are the result of intelli- origin of species. gent planning and activity. “I’m not a scientist. I don’t know much about science,” For many, it was a compromise that satisfied both sides. says Wise, a member of the Ohio State Board of Education. Some felt that it was not enough. Others believed that the “There’s nothing the intelligent design people showed me Ohio board had caved to the pressure of Darwin’s critics. that the science people couldn’t say,‘That’s not evidence,’or “Science education has not convinced a lot of ‘That’s not a fact.’ I can’t refute them because I don’t know Americans that Darwin was right,”says Charles Haynes, se- that much about it. I can’t believe either side.” nior scholar at the Freedom Forum’s first amendment The question of which side you believe is central to the Center, based at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.
    [Show full text]
  • The Scopes Trial, Antievolutionism, and the Last Crusade of William Jennings Bryan
    University of Mississippi eGrove Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 2012 Six Days of Twenty-Four Hours: the Scopes Trial, Antievolutionism, and the Last Crusade of William Jennings Bryan Kari Lynn Edwards Follow this and additional works at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/etd Part of the History of Christianity Commons Recommended Citation Edwards, Kari Lynn, "Six Days of Twenty-Four Hours: the Scopes Trial, Antievolutionism, and the Last Crusade of William Jennings Bryan" (2012). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 96. https://egrove.olemiss.edu/etd/96 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at eGrove. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of eGrove. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SIX DAYS OF TWENTY-FOUR HOURS: THE SCOPES TRIAL, ANTIEVOLUTIONISM, AND THE LAST CRUSADE OF WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN A Thesis presented in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Southern Studies The University of Mississippi by KARI EDWARDS May 2012 Copyright Kari Edwards 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ABSTRACT The academic study of the Scopes Trial has always been approached from a traditional legal interpretation. This project seeks to reframe the conventional arguments surrounding the trial, treating it instead as a significant religious event, one which not only altered the course of Christian Fundamentalism and the Creationist movement, but also perpetuated Southern religious stereotypes through the intense, and largely negative, nationwide publicity it attracted. Prosecutor William Jennings Bryan's crucial role is also redefined, with his denial of a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis during the trial serving as the impetus for the shift toward ultra- conservatism and young-earth Creationism within the movement after 1925.
    [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]
  • Notes Edwards V. Aguillard: Creation Science and Evolution
    Notes Edwards v. Aguillard: Creation Science and Evolution - The Fall of Balanced Treatment Acts in the Public Schools "It took God only six days to create the universe - it's gonna take the court two weeks to decide if it should be taught."' I. INTRODUCTION Since Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859,2 religious fundamentalists have waged war against the book's evolu- tionary teachings.' Recognizing that the courts will not allow the teaching of evolution to be suppressed,4 fundamentalists no longer 1. Statement by an anonymous observer at the Arkansas creation-evolution trial. D. NELKIN, THE CREATION CONTROVERSY - SCIENCE OR SCRIPTURE IN THE SCHOOLS 137 (1982). 2. The theory of evolution credited to Darwin (1809-1882) is that all forms of advanced life inhabiting the earth originated as lower forms of life, which ascended to their current status in a natural selection. Note, The Constitutional Issues Surrounding the Science-Religion Conflict in Public Schools: The Anti-Evolution Controversy, 10 PEPPERDINE L. REV. 461, 463 (1983). 3. "In 1925, fundamentalists and evolutionists first clashed in court at the crimi- nal trial of John Scopes. Scopes, a Tennessee schoolteacher, was convicted of violating a state law prohibiting the teaching of evolution." Levit, Creationism, Evolution and the First Amendment: The Limits of ConstitutionallyPermissible Scientific Inquiry, 14 J.L. & EDUC. 211, 211 (1985). The law was upheld by the Tennessee Supreme Court. Scopes v. State, 154 Tenn. 105, 289 S.W. 363 (1927). 4. Forty years after the Scopes trial, the United States Supreme Court held that the prohibition of the teaching of evolution violated the first amendment.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution Education Around the Globe Evolution Education Around the Globe
    Hasan Deniz · Lisa A. Borgerding Editors Evolution Education Around the Globe Evolution Education Around the Globe [email protected] Hasan Deniz • Lisa A. Borgerding Editors Evolution Education Around the Globe 123 [email protected] Editors Hasan Deniz Lisa A. Borgerding College of Education College of Education, Health, University of Nevada Las Vegas and Human Services Las Vegas, NV Kent State University USA Kent, OH USA ISBN 978-3-319-90938-7 ISBN 978-3-319-90939-4 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90939-4 Library of Congress Control Number: 2018940410 © Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
    [Show full text]
  • How William Jennings Bryan's Struggle with Social Darwinism and Legal Formalism Demythologize the Scopes Monkey Trial Kevin P
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Campbell University Law School Campbell University School of Law Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law Scholarly Works Faculty Scholarship 2004 Inherit the Myth: How William Jennings Bryan's Struggle with Social Darwinism and Legal Formalism Demythologize the Scopes Monkey Trial Kevin P. Lee Campbell University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/fac_sw Recommended Citation Kevin P. Lee, Inherit the Myth: How William Jennings Bryan's Struggle with Social Darwinism and Legal Formalism Demythologize the Scopes Monkey Trial, 33 Cap. U. L. Rev. 347 (2004). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Works by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law. INHERIT THE MYTH: HOW WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN'S STRUGGLE WITH SOCIAL DARWINISM AND LEGAL FORMALISM DEMYTHOLOGIZE THE SCOPES MONKEY TRIAL KEVIN P. LEE* The trial of John T. Scopes is an important milestone in the history of American legal thought. Known in the vernacular as the "Scopes Monkey Trial," the case took place in Dayton, Tennessee in the summer of 1925.1 It concerned a substitute high school biology teacher who was arrested and convicted for teaching evolutionary theory in violation of a Tennessee anti- evolution act.2 At the time, the trial was the most public confrontation between religious fundamentalism and modem science.
    [Show full text]
  • “Scopes Wasn't the First”: Nebraska's 1924 Anti-Evolution Trial
    “Scopes Wasn’t the First”: Nebraska’s 1924 Anti-Evolution Trial (Article begins on page 2 below.) This article is copyrighted by History Nebraska (formerly the Nebraska State Historical Society). You may download it for your personal use. For permission to re-use materials, or for photo ordering information, see: https://history.nebraska.gov/publications/re-use-nshs-materials Learn more about Nebraska History (and search articles) here: https://history.nebraska.gov/publications/nebraska-history-magazine History Nebraska members receive four issues of Nebraska History annually: https://history.nebraska.gov/get-involved/membership Full Citation: Adam Shapiro, “‘Scopes Wasn’t the First’: Nebraska’s 1924 Anti-Evolution Trial,” Nebraska History 94 (2013): 110-119 Article Summary: “Darwin and Genesis fought out a battle in District Judge Broady’s court in Lincoln,” reported the Fremont Tribune on October 22, 1924, “and . Genesis lost and Darwin won.” Nebraska had its own anti- evolution trial nearly seven months before the famous Scopes trial opened in Tennessee. But how did the Nebraska case remain obscure while the Tennessee case became a national sensation? Cataloging Information: Names: John Scopes, Charles Darwin, William Jennings Bryan, Charles W. Bryan, David S Domer, William A Klink, Charles William Taylor, Frank R Beers, Herbert Spencer, Charles Hodge Place Names: Dayton, Tennessee; Rising City, Butler County, Nebraska Keywords: evolution, Midland College, slander, Genesis, eugenics, (physical) disability, Four Minute Men, Siman Act,
    [Show full text]
  • (SAM) BERRY Christians in Science: Looking Back – and Forward
    S & CB (2015), 27, 125-152 0954–4194 MALCOLM JEEVES AND R.J. (SAM) BERRY Christians in Science: Looking Back – and Forward Christians in Science had its origins in 1944 in a small gathering of mainly postgraduate students in Cambridge. This group became the nucleus of the Research Scientists’ Christian Fellowship (which changed its name in 1988 to Christians in Science). The RSCF was originally a graduate section of the Inter-Varsity Fellowship (now the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship), but is now an independent charity and limited company, albeit still retaining close links with UCCF. We review the seventy year history of CiS and its contributions to the maturing discussions in the faith-science area; we see a positive and developing role for the organisation. Keywords: Oliver Barclay, Donald MacKay, Reijer Hooykaas, Essays and Reviews, Victoria Institute, Research Scientists’ Christian Fellowship, God- of-the-gaps, naturalism A range of scientific discoveries in the first half of the nineteenth century raised worrying conflicts over traditional understandings of the Bible. The early geologists produced evidence that the world was much older than the few thousand years then assumed, more powerful telescopes showed that the solar system was a very small part of an extensive galaxy, and grow- ing awareness of the plants and animals of the Americas and Australasia led to unsettling suggestions that there might have been several centres of creation. These problems over biblical interpretations became focused in mid-century
    [Show full text]
  • The Scopes Trial: Who Decides What Gets Taught in the Classroom?
    CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION SPRING 2006B I L L O F R I G H T S I N A C VOLUTME 2I2 O NUMBN ER 2 The Scopes Trial: Who Decides What Gets Taught in the Classroom? One of the most famous trials in American history took place in a small town in Tennessee in 1925. On trial was a high-school teacher, John Scopes. The charge against him: teaching evolution. n July 10, 1925, hundreds of reporters gathered in Dayton, Tennessee. They were covering the trial of JOohn Scopes, a 24-year-old science teacher and part-time football coach. Scopes had been arrested for violating a Tennessee law that made it unlawful “to teach any theory that denies the Story of Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animal.” The Scopes trial riveted Attorney Clarence Darrow (standing on the right) questions the witness William national attention and is one of the most famous trials of Jennings Bryan in the Scopes trial. The judge had moved the trial outdoors the century. because he was afraid the floor might collapse. (Smithsonian Institution Archives, Record Unit 7091, image #2005-26202) Evolution Versus Religion In 1859 in Great Britain, Charles Darwin published On the War I. The outcome of the war caused widespread disillusion - Origin of the Species . In his book, Darwin laid out evidence ment, and many were concerned about a perceived collapse in that living things had evolved from common ances - public morals. Fundamentalists shared a belief in biblical lit - W tors through a mechanism he called “natural selec - eralism.
    [Show full text]
  • Good Science, Bad Science: Teaching Evolution in the States. INSTITUTION Thomas B
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 447 099 SP 039 576 AUTHOR Lerner, Lawrence S. TITLE Good Science, Bad Science: Teaching Evolution in the States. INSTITUTION Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, Washington, DC. PUB DATE 2000-09-00 NOTE 66p. AVAILABLE FROM Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, 1627 K Street, N.W., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20006; Tel: 202-223-5452 or 888-TBF-7474 (toll-free); Fax: 202-223-9226; Web site: http://www.edexcellence.net. PUB TYPE Reports Descriptive (141) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Academic Standards; Biological Influences; Creationism; Elementary Secondary Education; *Evolution; Public Schools; *Science Education; *State Standards ABSTRACT This report discusses evolution in science education, evaluating the state-by-state treatment of evolution in science standards. It explains the role of evolution as an organizing principle for all the historical sciences. Seven sections include: "Introduction" (the key role of evolution in the sciences); "How Do Good Standards Treat Biological Evolution?" (controversial versus consensual knowledge and why students should learn about evolution); "Extrascientific Issues" (e.g., the diversity of anti-evolutionists, why anti-evolutionism persists, and how science standards reflect creationist pressures); "Evaluation of State Standards" (very good to excellent, good, satisfactory, unsatisfactory, useless or absent, and disgraceful); "Sample Standards"; "Further Analysis" (grades for science standards as a whole); and "Conclusions." Overall, 31 states do at least a satisfactory job of handling the central organizing principle of the historical sciences, 10 states do an excellent or very good job of presenting evolution, and 21 states do a good or satisfactory job. More than one-third of states do not do a satisfactory job.
    [Show full text]