BISI5109_790-796 9/4/01 7:54 PM Page 790

Education The Lingering Impact of the on High School Textbooks Downloaded from http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/

RANDY MOORE

he publication of ’s On the Origin of In the 1920s, fundamentalists tried to translate their beliefs TSpecies by Means of in 1859 began a into political reform and thereby save the nation’s morality. scientific revolution that changed many people’s view of the After a successful crusade to outlaw liquor, fundamentalists world. Although Darwin’s ideas were controversial, in the set out to eliminate discussions of in public schools. he had a powerful advocate: Harvard’s Asa Led by religious leaders such as William Bell Riley, J. Frank at Ernst Mayr Library of the Museum Comp Zoology, Harvard University on August 7, 2014 Gray, an evangelical Christian who was America’s leading Norris, and—most prominently—, botanist and president of the American Association for the Ad- fundamentalists began a campaign that blamed Darwin’s vancement of Science (of which William Jennings Bryan— ideas for the decline of the nation’s morality. Fundamental- one of John Scopes’s prosecutors—was a member). Gray, ist preachers such as Billy Sunday (a former Chicago Cubs out- who helped arrange for the publication of Origin in the fielder) used theatrical services to link evolution with eu- United States, was the only American taken into Darwin’s con- genics, prostitution, and crime; Aimee Semple McPherson fidence before Origin was published (Larson 1989). Gray es- presided at ritual hangings of “monkey teachers”; other poused a progressive, God-driven evolution of life. Although preachers claimed that Darwin’s ideas promoted the four some people were disturbed by Darwin’s ideas, Gray’s rec- P’s: prostitution, perversion, pornography, and permissiveness onciliation of God and evolution eased many people’s con- (Gould 1983, Larson 1997, de Camp 1969). According to cerns about evolution (Scott 1994, Moore 1997). Gray’s First fundamentalists, antievolution laws represented a return to Lessons in Botany and Vegetable Physiology (1857; later renamed prewar normalcy, just as creationism in the public schools rep- The Elements of Botany) was the leading botany textbook of resented a public validation of a populist lifestyle (Larson 1997, the late 19th century and the first high school textbook after Taylor and Condit 1988). the publication of Origin to include Darwin’s ideas about evo- In many places, fundamentalists tried to ban the teach- lution. ing of evolution in public schools by targeting teachers. Early in the 20th century the public’s concerns about evo- For example, ’s Butler Law—the law that John lution resurfaced, for by the end of World War I,religious at- Scopes was convicted of violating—made it a crime “to titudes in the United States had shifted. A perceived decline teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation in morality, along with a collective longing for the seeming of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that simplicity of prewar life, prompted many people to reexam- man has descended from a lower order of animals.” Al- ine and increasingly rely on their religious faith for comfort though the law didn’t mention textbooks, fundamentalists and stability. Religious fundamentalism, based on a literal in- knew that textbooks (along with teachers) were the dri- terpretation of the Bible, became increasingly popular. Peo- ving forces behind a curriculum. Consequently, funda- ple who endorsed biblical literalism got their name—funda- mentalists—from a series of 12 small pamphlets (containing 90 articles) entitled The Fundamentals that were written be- Randy Moore (e-mail: [email protected]) is editor of The American Bi- tween 1910 and 1915. These pamphlets, whose publication was ology Teacher and professor of biology at General College, University funded by Lyman and Milton Steward (the founders of the of , 128 Pleasant Street SE, , MN 55455. Union Oil Company), proclaimed biblical literalism as the an- Moore’s book Evolution in the Courtroom: A Reference Guide will be tidote to “modernism.” Millions of the pamphlets were dis- published soon by ABC-CLIO Publishers. © 2001 American Institute tributed (Larson 1989, Clouse 1995). of Biological Sciences.

790 BioScience • September 2001 / Vol. 51 No. 9 BISI5109_790-796 9/4/01 7:54 PM Page 791

Education

mentalists’ campaigns often targeted textbooks. For exam- been a convenient excuse; after all, Darwin’s ideas would not ple, on 24 March 1923, and with little fanfare, Oklahoma seem to be any more abstract than the Greek, Latin, ancient Governor John C. Walton (a progressive Democrat) signed history, philosophy, and other courses included in the classi- America’s first antievolution law; that law offered free text- cal curriculum popular during that time (Skoog 1979). The books to public schools whose teachers would not mention publication of sanitized textbooks at precisely the time when evolution (the law was repealed the following year, soon af- some legislatures had passed, and others were considering, ter Walton was impeached). The following year, the North antievolution laws was no coincidence (Grabiner and Miller

Carolina Board of Education—with the governor’s sup- 1974). Downloaded from port—barred public schools from using biology textbooks In 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee,John Scopes was a coach and that presented an origin for humans that differed from the substitute science teacher at Rhea County High School. Stu- one described in the Bible (Larson 1989). Despite these dents in a biology class that he taught used a textbook enti- acts, it was the Scopes trial—43 years after Darwin’s death— tled A Civic Biology: Presented in Problems by George William

that would have the largest impact on biology textbooks and, Hunter (Hunter 1914). On 23 April, Scopes assigned the evo- http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/ therefore, on biology teaching. lution chapter, but didn’t teach his students about the topic because he missed school the next day because of illness (i.e., Biology textbooks before the Scopes trial Scopes was not even in school on the day listed on the in- In the early 1900s, biology textbooks were characterized by dictment that led to his trial; he merely assigned the offend- a diverse coverage of evolution. A few textbooks did not ing pages as part of a review for an exam; Larson 1997). mention the word evolution (e.g., Hunter’s Elements of Biol- Hunter made clear his view that evolution was a reality; he ogy, published in 1907; Peabody and Hunt’s Elementary Bi- used the word evolution, and credited the theory of evolution ology, published in 1913), whereas others devoted entire to Darwin. The textbook by Hunter, a former biology teacher, chapters to the subject. In most textbooks, however, evolution was the state-approved text in Tennessee high schools (Day- was featured prominently—so much so that William Jennings ton schools had used the book since 1919). Hunter’s book— at Ernst Mayr Library of the Museum Comp Zoology, Harvard University on August 7, 2014 Bryan complained that he could not find “any text book on oriented toward public health rather than theoretical biol- biology which does not begin with monkeys” (Numbers ogy—was also blatantly racist; in its discussion of five races 1992). Indeed, one textbook, The Elementary Principles of of humans, Hunter concluded that “the Caucasians repre- General Biology (Abbott 1914), dedicated more than 8,000 sented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and Amer- words to topics related to evolution. Some authors presented ica” were “the highest type of all.”Hunter’s book was a best- evolution with extraordinary assurance. For example, George seller, despite the fact that it included sections entitled “The Atkinson’s Botony for High School stated in 1912 that evolu- Doctrine of Evolution,” “Evolution of Man,” and “Charles tion “has been accepted,”and three years later a zoology text- Darwin and Natural Selection.” Other biology textbooks book by Vernon Kellogg and Rennie Doane noted that “or- popular at the time of Scopes’ trial (e.g., Moon’s Biology for ganic evolution is a fact, demonstrated and accepted”(Larson Beginners, published in 1921) also included chapters about 1989). Similarly, H. H. Newman wrote in Outlines of General evolution, although several of these books depicted evolution Zoology (Newman 1924), “There is no rival hypothesis to as a progressive process by which organisms became “more evolution, except the out-worn and completely refuted one perfect”organisms. Moon’s Biology for Beginners (1921) even of special creation, now retained only by the ignorant, dog- identified evolution as a fundamental and unifying concept matic, and the prejudiced.”Newman would learn that many of biology, noting that “both man and the apes are descended people—some biologists included—disagreed. from a common ancestor from which both lines have devel- How can we explain this diversity of books? Before Scopes’ oped.”Similarly, Linville’s The Biology of Man and Other Or- trial, some authors considered the topic of evolution to be too ganisms (1923) claimed that “so generally is the validity of the difficult for high school students. For example, authors J. E. theory admitted that it is often called the law of evolution,” Peabody and A. E. Hunt, who excluded evolution from many and Trafton’s Biology of Home and Community (1923) argued of their textbooks (e.g., Biology and Human Welfare, published that “the theory of evolution ... is universally accepted by in 1924), argued that evolution was better suited for cover- scientists as fact, and we rarely hear any arguments about its age in advanced rather than introductory courses. Similarly, truth. The matter about which scientists now disagree is re- Hunter (1911), who claimed that “abstractions are not a part lated to the question of how evolution takes place; but the fact of the thought of a first-year pupil,”stated that discoveries such of evolution no scientist doubts.” Interestingly, neither of as Mendel’s (and presumably Darwin’s) were “too difficult to these textbooks (i.e., Linville’s The Biology of Man and Other explain to high school pupils.” Other authors excused their Organisms and Trafton’s Biology of Home and Community) was caution by citing a report by the College Entrance Examina- a bestseller, and neither was revised or republished in the 1930s tion Board claiming that a thorough treatment of evolution (Skoog 1979). The best-selling books were those such as might be too difficult for high school students (Grabiner Hunter’s, which dedicated fewer words to evolution and and Miller 1974). Although authors of biology textbooks which lacked the bold statements that distinguished the may have, in fact, considered Darwin’s ideas to be “too diffi- books by Linville and Trafton. cult”for high school students, this protestation could also have

September 2001 / Vol. 51 No. 9 • BioScience 791 BISI5109_790-796 9/4/01 7:54 PM Page 792

Education

The immediate impact of Scopes’ mittees in many states was George Baitsell’s Manual of Bio- conviction on biology textbooks logical Forms (1923), which included “no speculation on evo- After John Scopes was convicted in 1925, textbook pub- lution” (also see Keyser 1925). By 1929 evolution had been lishers and school boards throughout the country became purged from biology textbooks. Even fundamentalist preacher reluctant to deal with evolution. Simultaneously, the amount George McReady Price (1929) agreed that “virtually all text- of evolution taught in public schools decreased dramatically books on the market have been revised to meet the needs of (Larson 1989), and virtually all publishers removed Darwin’s the Fundamentalists.”

ideas about evolution as the unifying theme of life from their The 1926 revision of Moon’s Biology for Beginners showed Downloaded from biology books (Troost 1967, Grabiner and Miller 1974). the dramatic impact of the Scopes trial on biology textbooks. Within a few months after Scopes’ trial, Texas Governor Whereas a portrait of Charles Darwin dominated the fron- Miriam Ferguson—the first female governor in the South— tispiece of the 1921 edition, the 1926 version replaced Dar- ordered her state’s textbook commission to cut out (with win with a somewhat less controversial image: a cartoon of

scissors) the pages containing discussions of the theory of the digestive system. Other changes, such as the replacement http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/ evolution from its high school biology textbooks (for years, of “evolution”with “development,”were common in Moon’s this ban forced publishers to produce special, sanitized book and others. Many of the sanitized books (including books for use in Texas). Ferguson, a stand-in for her hus- Hunter’s) were revised and republished in the 1930s. Books band James (a former governor who had been impeached that stressed evolution (e.g., Alfred Kinsey’s Introduction to Bi- in 1917 as a result of a road-contract scandal; de Camp ology and Ella T. Smith’s Exploring Biology, which stated that 1968), approved Truman J. Moon’s Biology for Beginners only “no one has discovered a single fact to disprove the theory of after publishers such as Henry Holt, Macmillan, and Allyn evolution.... Evolution is a fact.... Plants and animals do and Bacon agreed to delete three chapters that mentioned change and have always been changing”) either sold poorly evolution (Ginger 1958). Ferguson justified the deletion of or became extinct (Grabiner and Miller 1974, Skoog 1979). evolution by proclaiming that “I’m a Christian mother By 1940 most high school biology teachers did not include evo- at Ernst Mayr Library of the Museum Comp Zoology, Harvard University on August 7, 2014 who believes Jesus Christ died to save humanity, and I am lution in their courses (Godfrey 1983, Futuyma 1983), thereby not going to let that kind of rot go into Texas textbooks” (de prompting a biologist to note that “biology is still pursued by Camp 1968). The commission threatened to fire any teacher long shadows from the middle ages, shadows screening from using books that had not been approved. The following year, our people what our science has learned of human origins...a the Louisiana superintendent of education took a similar science sabotaged because its central and binding principle dis- step. places a hallowed myth” (Riddle 1941). Meanwhile, Tennessee abandoned George Hunter’s popu- lar textbook (i.e., the textbook that Scopes used in Dayton) The long-term impact of Scopes’ soon after Scopes was indicted. The publisher of Hunter’s text- conviction on biology textbooks book gave it a new title—New Civic Biology (1926), presum- During the 1940s and the decades that followed, evolution ably to distinguish it from the previous edition, which was slowly began to reappear in biology textbooks. Some biology linked with the Scopes verdict. Hunter himself was concerned textbooks also began to include religious quotations; groups that publicity from the Scopes trial would drive his book such as the California State Board of Education argued that from classrooms. Thus, when writing his new book, Hunter these quotations made biology textbooks worthy of adoption deleted the section on evolution, deleted charts showing the because the quotations showed that the books were “tactfully evolution of species, downplayed the contributions of Dar- written” and presented evolution as a “theory and not as an win to the “development” of species (some of the credit was established fact”(see Grabiner and Miller 1974). However, the given to Hugo de Vries), and added vague qualifiers such as best-selling textbooks continued to downplay or ignore evo- “suggested” and “believed” when describing evolution. Dar- lution; for example, the best-selling biology textbook in the win’s “wonderful discovery of the doctrine of evolution”was 1930s (Baker and Mills’ Dynamic Biology, published in 1933) changed to Darwin’s “interpretation of the way in which all did not include the word evolution,nor did it include any in- life changes,” and the discussion of humans’ place in nature formation about the evolution or fossil record of humans. In- began with a newly added sentence:“Man is the only creature deed, Dynamic Biology included an attack on evolution, liken- that has moral and religious instincts.”The complaint by the ing Darwin’s ideas to Lamarck’s and claiming that Darwin’s World’s Christian Fundamentals Association’s Textbook Com- theory was no longer generally accepted. That attack on Dar- mission that “One of the greatest needs of the day is suitable win was followed by a tribute to God. The popularity and com- textbooks on the physical and biological sciences, written by mercial success of Dynamic Biology exemplified the general authors who are not obsessed with theories that are harmful situation in the 1930s. Textbook publishers, afraid of antag- to the young people of our schools” (Report 1928) was ad- onizing conservative Christians, said as little as possible about dressed by mainstream publishers: After Scopes’ conviction, evolution in their textbooks (Numbers 1992). the word evolution disappeared from Hunter’s book, as it Virtually all textbooks published in the 1930s and 1940s did from most other biology textbooks. Indeed, one of the few claimed to emphasize principles of biology, but none in- pre-Scopes biology textbooks approved by textbook com- cluded evolution as one of those principles. If it was included

792 BioScience • September 2001 / Vol. 51 No. 9 BISI5109_790-796 9/4/01 7:54 PM Page 793

Education

in textbooks at all, evolution was presented parenthetically or Foundation (NSF) to fund and develop state-of-the-art sci- as an afterthought, always near the end of the textbook. The ence textbooks. (Ironically, the National Defense Education “evolution unit” remains near the end of some of today’s Act would be used 18 years later in an attempt to ban the teach- textbooks, where it can easily be deleted. ing of evolution in public schools. In 1976, Arizona Con- About two decades after Scopes’ trial, authors of some bi- gressman John Conlan sponsored an amendment to the Na- ology textbooks again made a few bold statements about the tional Defense Education Act that would “prohibit federal validity of evolution. For example, E. T. Smith (1949) wrote funding of any curriculum project with evolutionary content

in Exploring Biology that “modern biologists accept evolution or implications” (Taylor 1992). The amendment passed by a Downloaded from as proved,”and other authors attacked views that opposed evo- vote of 222 to 174 [Taylor 1992]. Although the Senate narrowly lution. However, these pro-evolution textbooks were rarely rejected the amendment, funding for some projects [includ- popular. The best-selling books presented a much more con- ing many at the National Science Foundation] was delayed servative treatment of evolution (Skoog 1979). By 1942 fewer pending a review of their “evolutionary content.”)

than half of the science teachers in the United States taught That same year, the American Institute of Biological Sci- http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/ evolution (Futuyma 1983). ences approved a proposal to establish the Biological Sci- In the late 1940s, many authors reduced their treatments ences Curriculum Study (BSCS), which was funded by a of human evolution. For example, the nearly 1,000 words that grant of $143,000 from NSF. By 1959 BSCS had established Hunter devoted to evolution in Life Sciences: A Social Biology its headquarters at the University of Colorado and received (1941) were reduced to about 235 words in the next edition an additional grant of $595,000 from NSF.After testing its ideas (Skoog 1979). Some authors even tried to reconcile evolution with 1,000 teachers and 165,000 students in 47 states, the BSCS and Genesis. For example, Hunter (1941) stated in Life Sci- in 1963 produced three versions of a high school biology ences: A Social Biology that “later one-celled green plants textbook, each identified by the color that dominated its must have come into existence and then one-celled animals, cover—blue (a molecular approach), green (an environ- which feed on the green plants and bacteria.”In 1949 a sim- mental/ecological approach), and yellow (a cellular/devel- at Ernst Mayr Library of the Museum Comp Zoology, Harvard University on August 7, 2014 ilar statement was extended with the addition of the line,“As opmental approach) (Engleman 2001). you see, if you turn to the first chapter of Genesis, this is the Biologists who wrote those books were shocked when they order of Creation.” reviewed the competition; as famed biologist H. J. Muller In the late 1950s, many textbooks continued to avoid men- noted,“One hundred years without Darwin are enough.”In tioning the word evolution.Ifmentioned, evolution was usu- fact, the 100 years were not those since Darwin’s Origin; ally described timidly with abstractions and euphemisms rather, they were the 35 years since the Scopes trial (Gra- (e.g.,“change”and “development”) and, as in earlier textbooks, biner and Miller 1974). BSCS was determined to base its was usually in the final chapters of the book. For example, the textbooks on the best science available rather than on the con- 1956 version of Moon’s book devoted only one page to evo- sensus-driven, bland “evolutionless” biology that typified lution, which it referred to as “racial development,”and said most other textbooks (Godfrey 1983). nothing about human origins. The evidence supporting evo- The BSCS textbooks, along with their revisions in 1968, lution received even less coverage in books published in the stressed evolution as the unifying theme of biology and gave 1950s than it had in those published in the 1940s (Skoog unprecedented attention to the importance of and evidence 1979). As the 1950s came to a close, there was no evidence in for evolution. BSCS authors wove evolution into their books textbooks that evolution was regarded as a major concept in as “the warp and woof of modern biology” (Nelkin 1982, biology. On the contrary, biology textbooks and biology Grobman 1969, and references therein). The BSCS books teaching in public schools—according to one prominent bi- “put evolution back in the biology classroom”(Moore 2000). ologist—were dominated by “antiquated religious traditions” Not surprisingly, the BSCS books were attacked. Some of (Muller 1959). the attacks came from creationist biology teachers such as Rita Ward,who complained that the books made God unneces- How the BSCS changed sary and stopped just short of atheism (Ward 1965). However, biology textbooks the harshest attacks came from Texas, where—because of In the late 1950s, policymakers in the United States became the efforts of Mel and Norma Gabler, two self-appointed concerned that our nation’s scientific and technological abil- textbook censors from Longview—the BSCS books were de- ities had been eclipsed by those of the Soviet Union. These con- nounced in newspapers, in church sermons, and at hearings cerns were heightened by the Soviet Union’s launch on 4 Oc- of the Texas Textbook Commission (Grabiner and Miller tober 1957 of Sputnik I, the first orbiting artificial satellite. This 1974). BSCS refused to concede to creationists’ demands, launch announced to America that nature’s secrets—unlike and by 1969 two of the three books originally adopted in Texas political secrets—cannot be concealed and that no nation were dropped from the commission-approved list. Similar re- holds a monopoly on the laws of nature (Shermer 1997). In versals of adoptions occurred elsewhere when protesters response to these concerns, President Dwight Eisenhower raised objections (Godfrey 1983, Nelkin 1982). requested (and Congress passed) the National Defense Edu- The attacks on BSCS’s books caused BSCS to moderate cation Act of 1958, which encouraged the National Science some of their discussions of evolution. For example, in 1963

September 2001 / Vol. 51 No. 9 • BioScience 793 BISI5109_790-796 9/4/01 7:54 PM Page 794

Education

the word suggests was substituted for dramatically shows in a scene. One of those books was Moore and Slusher’s (1970) at- discussion about the fossil evidence for evolution. Similarly, tractive Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity,a high the statement “throughout this book it will be evident that the school biology textbook produced by the Creation Research theory of evolution by natural selection is the major frame- Society; that book promoted what came to be known as the work of modern biology” appeared in 1968 but not in 1973. “two-model approach” (i.e., the evolution model and the Despite these changes, the centrality of evolution (and its creation model), adding that “a choice between these two extensive coverage) remained in the BSCS books. Thanks to models may be made in terms of the effectiveness with which

the endorsement of the federal government, increased inter- each may be used to correlate available data” (Moore and Downloaded from est in public education, and legal precedents limiting religious Slusher 1970). Moore and Slusher’s book included contri- influences in public schools (i.e., the same forces that helped butions by various biologists, some of whom later helped write overturn Tennessee’s Butler Law in 1967; see Grabiner and A Critical Look at Evolution (Camp 1972), a book edited by Miller 1974), the BSCS books became remarkably popular: By a Church of Christ preacher (Numbers 1992). Biology: A

1970 BSCS books had been adopted in almost half of Amer- Search for Order in Complexity (now out of print) promoted http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/ ican high schools. The books were used throughout the coun- the Biblical story of creation and was strongly antievolution, try, including in the three southern states that had antievo- as evidenced by statements such as “There is no way to sup- lution laws dating from the 1920s: Tennessee (its antievolution port the doctrine of evolution,”“a primary purpose of science law passed in 1925), Mississippi (antievolution law of 1926), should be to learn about God’s handiwork,”and “it is explicit and Arkansas (antievolution law of 1928, the only such law throughout the text that the most reasonable explanation ever approved by a popular vote; see Grobman 1969, Skoog for the actual facts of biology as they are known scientifically 1979, Moore 2000). The BSCS books transformed the profile is that of Biblical creationism.”Several public schools adopted of high school biology textbooks. Ironically, however, one Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity;all 10,000 copies in alumnus of the BSCS textbook project (Lane Lester, a Purdue- the first printing sold within a few months, prompting Zon- trained geneticist) was convinced by Duane Gish of the In- dervan (the book’s Christian publisher) to print an addi- at Ernst Mayr Library of the Museum Comp Zoology, Harvard University on August 7, 2014 stitute for Creation Research to denounce evolution, after tional 25,000 copies (Numbers 1992). However, in , which Lester became director of Liberty Baptist College’s where the book was adopted over the objections of teachers Center for Creation Studies (Numbers 1992). and parents, a court ruled that the use of Biology: A Search for Commercial publishers, trying to keep pace with BSCS, be- Order in Complexity in public schools was unconstitutional gan reinstating evolution in their books. This reemphasis of because it violated the separation of church and state. As one evolution in biology textbooks did not go unchallenged. For judge noted, “The question is whether a text obviously de- example, in 1968 the US Supreme Court ruled that it was un- signed to present only the view of Biblical Creationism in a constitutional to ban the teaching of evolution (Epperson v favorable light is constitutionally acceptable in the public Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 [1968]). This decision caused cre- schools of Indiana. Two hundred years of constitutional gov- ationists to change their tactics. Rather than continue to try ernment demand the answer be no” (Larson 1989). to ban evolution from classrooms and textbooks, creationists Henry Morris’s influential Scientific Creationism (1974) tried to ensure that “alternate theories”—especially the Bib- also used the “two-model” approach to repackage creation- lical version of creation—be given “equal time” and “bal- ism as science. Scientific Creationism,a handbook for biology anced treatment.”These efforts often involved textbooks. For teachers, argued that “the basic scientific creation model” example, Tennessee’s 1973 “Genesis bill” was restricted to could be “taught without reference to the book of Genesis or textbooks; unlike in earlier laws (such as the one used to to other religious literature or to religious doctrines.” Scien- convict John Scopes), teachers were not mentioned in the leg- tific Creationism came in two similar editions, one for pub- islation. According to the Genesis bill, evolution was to be pre- lic schools (containing no references to the Bible) and one for sented as a theory, not a fact, and other viewpoints (i.e., Gen- Christian schools (which included a chapter entitled “Creation esis) were to be given equal emphasis. The Genesis bill was According to the Scriptures”). declared unconstitutional in 1975 by Tennessee’s Sixth Cir- In the late 1970s, publishers again responded to creation- cuit Court of Appeals (Daniel v Waters, 515 F2d 485 [6th Cir ists’ complaints by reducing the coverage of evolution in 1975]). Subsequent attempts to legislate the legitimacy of their biology textbooks. For example, between 1974 and 1977 “creation science” had a similar fate (McLean v Arkansas a section about Charles Darwin in Biology (published by Sil- Board of Education,529 FSupp. 1255, 50 [1982], U.S. Law Week ver Burdett) was cut from 1373 words to 45 words, the dis- 2412). Although William Jennings Bryan supported giving cussion of the origin of life cut from 2023 words to 322 equal emphasis to creationism and evolution (Cornelius words, and the discussion of Darwin’s views of evolution cut 1990), the courts have not; for example, the US Supreme from 2750 words to 296 words. Sections on fossil formation Court struck down Louisiana’s “Balanced Treatment” act in and geological eras disappeared completely. Similarly, a sen- 1987 (Edwards v Aguillard, 482 US 578, 55 [1987], U.S. Law tence that stated “Scientists do not doubt that organisms liv- Week 4860, S Ct 2573, 96 L Ed 2d 510). ing today descended from species of previous ages”in the 1973 Given the strong public support for creationism, it wasn’t edition of Moon’s Modern Biology was deleted in the 1977 edi- long before creation-based biology textbooks appeared on the tion. Whereas the 1969 edition of Modern Biology said that

794 BioScience • September 2001 / Vol. 51 No. 9 BISI5109_790-796 9/4/01 7:54 PM Page 795

Education

“modern man has probably evolved from primitive, more gen- wards decisions by encouraging teachers to teach creationism; eralized ancestors,”the 1977 edition stated that “Darwin was politicians such as House Republican whip Tom DeLay link suggesting that humans may also have evolved from less spe- the teaching of evolution with societal ills such as school vi- cialized ancestors.” olence, birth control, and abortion; and legislatures in states The changes prompted a variety of comments. A biology such as Alabama require or suggest the insertion of dis- textbook editor admitted that “we try not to say the word evo- claimers (e.g., stating that evolution is “only a theory”) in bi- lution very much,”and Wayne Moyer, the executive director ology textbooks (Moore 2000, Mr. DeLay’s power play 1999).

of the National Association of Biology Teachers, added that Although these disclaimers are ostensibly to promote “criti- Downloaded from “we have done a botched job of teaching evolutionary theory.” cal thinking,” in 1997 the US District Court for the Eastern Chemist Russell Doolittle lamented the status of science ed- District of Louisiana rejected a policy requiring teachers to read ucation:“At first I couldn’t understand the gullibility of peo- aloud such a disclaimer when they taught about evolution ple. It took me a while to understand that the average Amer- (Freiler v Tangipahoa Board of Education,No. 94-3577 ED La,

ican is not equipped to combat this sort of thing. The tragedy 8 Aug. 1997); the disclaimer said that the only “concept” http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/ of it all is the state of science education in the country—it’s from which students were not to be “dissuaded”was the bib- simply, sadly, awful” (Pierce 1981). Biology teacher Frank lical story of creation. Spica had a simpler explanation:“The creationists have won. Misgivings about evolution are not limited to politicians They’ve not passed any legislation, but they’ve got the text- and publishers. Indeed, many biology teachers—regardless of books changed” (Pierce 1981). the textbook they use—teach the subject of evolution either In the 1980s several court cases questioned, at least in part, poorly or apologetically. Other biology teachers do not teach the use of evolution-based biology textbooks in public schools. evolution at all, because they do not know enough about the For example, a Sacramento superior court found that the topic, because they are intimidated by antievolution politicians California State Board of Education gave sufficient accom- or administrators, or because they are creationists who reject modation to religious views of students, contrary to claims that evolution altogether (Weld and McNew 1999). In these in- at Ernst Mayr Library of the Museum Comp Zoology, Harvard University on August 7, 2014 biology classes prohibited parents and their children’s free ex- stances, textbooks are relatively insignificant. Even the National ercise of religion (Segraves v California,No. 27898, Sacra- Science Foundation has tried to placate the public’s concerns mento Superior Court, 1981; for other such cases, see Moore about evolution; for example, it has deleted the word evolu- 2000 and references therein). In 1980 creationism was an of- tion from public abstracts of funded proposals (Pigliucci ficial part of the curriculum in several states (e.g., Wisconsin, 1998). For most biology teachers, however, today’s evolu- Missouri, South Dakota), and in many other states “equal time” tion-based textbooks are important parts of the curriculum. had a de facto endorsement (Gorman 1980). When a Cali- fornia court ruled in the early 1980s that evolution be taught References cited as theory instead of fact, publishers quickly complied; as Lois Abbott JF. 1914. The Elementary Principles of General Biology. New York: Arnold, the senior science editor at Prentice Hall explained, Macmillan. Baker AO, Mills LN. 1933. Dynamic Biology. Chicago: Rand McNally. “We don’t advocate the idea of scientific creationism, but we Camp RS, ed. 1972. A Critical Look at Evolution. Atlanta (GA): Religion, Sci- felt we had to represent other points of view”(Godfrey 1983). ence, and Communication Research and Development Corporation. Another editor who had inserted religion into his company’s Clouse RG. 1995. Evangelicalism before and after the Scopes trial. Pages science textbooks excused his actions by noting that “we are 11–16 in Creation of an Evolving Controversy: A Symposium on the 70th in the business of selling textbooks” (Gorman 1980). Anniversary of the Scopes Evolution Trial. Dayton (TN): Bryan College. Cornelius RM. 1990. The trial that made monkeys out of the world. USA To- day Magazine 119 (November): 88–90. Biology textbooks today Darwin C. 1859. On the Origin of Species. London: Dent and Sons. In 1973 Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote in The American Bi- de Camp LS. 1968. . Garden City (NY): Doubleday. ology Teacher that “nothing in biology makes sense except in ———. 1969. The end of the monkey war. Scientific American 220: 15–21. the light of evolution.”Given this emphasis on the importance Dobzhansky T. 1973. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. The American Biology Teacher 35: 125–129. of evolution in understanding life, no publisher of a modern, Engleman L, ed. 2001. The BSCS Story: A History of the Biological Sciences mainstream biology textbook has eliminated its coverage of Curriculum Study. Colorado Spring (CO): SCCS. the topic. That is, all of today’s best-selling biology books in- Futuyma DJ. 1983. Science on Trial. New York: Random House. clude evolution as a major theme of biology. However, pub- Ginger R. 1958. Six Days or Forever? Tennessee vs. John Thomas Scopes. Ox- lishers remain concerned about how evolution is presented ford (UK): Oxford University Press. Godfrey LR. 1983. Scientists Confront Creationism. New York: Norton. in biology textbooks. The evolution unit remains the most sen- Gorman J. 1980. Creationism on the rise. Discover (October), pp. 92–94. sitive area of high school biology textbooks, and many pub- Gould SJ. 1983. Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes. New York: Norton. lishers often resort to euphemisms such as “change”and “de- Grabiner JV,Miller PD. 1974. Effects of the Scopes trial. Science 185: 832–836. velopment” to ease emphasis on the topic. Gray A. 1857. First Lessons in Botany and Vegetable Physiology. New York: A variety of people and groups continue to subvert the Ivison. Grobman AB. 1969. The Changing Classroom: The Role of the Biological Sci- teaching of evolution. For example, Republican party plat- ence Curriculum Study. Garden City (NJ): Doubleday. forms in several states endorse creationism; education officials Hunter GW. 1907. Elements of Biology. Chicago: American Book. in states such as openly defy the McLean and Ed- ———. 1911. Essentials of Biology. Chicago: American Book.

September 2001 / Vol. 51 No. 9 • BioScience 795 BISI5109_790-796 9/4/01 7:54 PM Page 796

Education

———. 1914. A Civic Biology: Presented in Problems. New York: American ———. 1924. Biology and Human Welfare. New York: Macmillan. Book. Pierce KM. 1981. Putting Darwin back in the dock. Time (16 March), pp. ———. 1926. New Civic Biology. Chicago: American Book. 80–82. ———. 1941. Life Sciences: A Social Biology. Chicago: American Book. Pigliucci M. 1998. Summer for the gods. BioScience 48: 406–407. Keyser LS. 1925. The claims of some scientists. Bible Champion 31: 200. Price GM. 1929. Bringing home the bacon. Bible Champion 35: 205. Larson EJ. 1989. Trial and Error: the American Controversy over Creation [Report] Report of the Textbook Committee. 1928. Christian Fundamentalist and Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press. 1: 9. Larson EJ. 1997. Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’s Riddle O. 1941. Preliminary impressions and facts from a questionnaire on Continuing Debate over Science and Religion. New York: Basic Books. secondary school biology. American Biology Teacher 3: 151–159. Downloaded from Linville H. 1923. The Biology of Man and Other Organisms. New York: Scott EC. 1994. The struggle for the schools. Natural History (July), pp. Harcourt, Brace. 10–13. Moon TJ. 1921. Biology for Beginners. New York: Henry Holt. Shermer M. 1997. Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Su- Moon TJ, et al. 1956. Modern Biology. New York: Henry Holt. perstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. New York: W. H. Free- Moore JN, Slusher HS. 1970. Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity. man. Grand Rapids (MI): Zondervan.

Skoog G. 1979. The topic of evolution in secondary school biology textbooks http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/ Moore R. 1997. The persuasive Mr. Darwin. BioScience 47: 107–114. 1900-1977. Science Education 63: 621–640. ———. 2000. In the Light of Evolution: Science Education on Trial. Reston Smith ET. 1949. Exploring Biology. Chicago: Harcourt, Brace. (VA): National Association of Biology Teachers. Morris HM, ed. 1974. Scientific Creationism. Public School ed. San Diego Taylor CA. 1992. Of audience, expertise and authority: The evolving cre- (CA): Creation-Life Publishers. ationism debate. Quarterly Journal of Speech 78: 277–295. Mr. DeLay’s power play. 1999. New York Times Week in Review, 20 June 1999, Taylor CA, Condit CM. 1988. Objectivity and elites: A creation science trial. p. 14. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 5: 293–312. Muller HJ. 1959. One hundred years without Darwinism are enough. The Hu- Trafton G. 1923. Biology of Home and Community. New York: Macmillan. manist 19: 139. Troost C. 1967. Evolution in biological education prior to 1960. Science Ed- Nelkin D. 1982. The Creation Controversy: Science or Scripture in the ucation 51: 300–301. Schools? New York: Norton. Ward RR. 1965. A critique of the BSCS biology books. Creation Research So-

Newman HH. 1924. Outlines of General Zoology. New York: Macmillan. ciety Quarterly 2: 5–8. at Ernst Mayr Library of the Museum Comp Zoology, Harvard University on August 7, 2014 Numbers RL. 1992. The Creationists. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Weld J, McNew JC. 1999. Attitudes toward evolution. Science Teacher 66: Peabody JE, Hunt AE. 1913. Elementary Biology. New York: Macmillan. 27–31.

796 BioScience • September 2001 / Vol. 51 No. 9