AN ANALYSIS OF THE ARGUMENTS FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM TO BE TAUGHT IN SCIENCE CLASSES, IN THE PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES By PAUL GODDEN A thesis submitted to the Department of Education in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Education Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada August, 2014 Copyright ©Paul Godden, 2014 CREATIONISM IN UNITED STATES PUBLIC SCHOOLS Abstract Teaching creationism, also called creation science, intelligent design (ID), and evidence against evolution—a religious doctrine, holding that life and the universe were created by a supernatural actor out of nothing—contravenes the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and is illegal in U.S. public science classes. Nevertheless many U.S. high school science teachers continue to teach creationist doctrine as part of an undocumented, or hidden, curriculum. The arguments advanced in this study propose that creationism—as opposed to evolution—cannot be defined as science, and seeks to answer the following questions: (1) What arguments have been put forward by advocates of creationism, to make the case for creationist ideology in U.S. public school science classes? (2) What impact have the arguments of proponents of intelligent design creationism had, on American public education policy and the law? Data has been collected from relevant U.S. court rulings and associated texts, e.g., expert witness testimony under oath, cross-examination, and published works referred to in the proceedings. Testimony was analysed for its content—content analytic—to address specific creationist arguments with regard to scientific rigour, honesty and empirical reasoning. Judicial opinion proved to be more relevant in terms of commentary—context analytic. Judges as decision makers have given clear accounts of how creationist arguments have swayed their ruling, and thus U.S. law and government education policy, thereby directly addressing this study’s second research question. In addressing these questions, this research has provided a summative analysis of the arguments presented for ID to be taught in the science classrooms of U.S. public schools, and the counter arguments which have convinced U.S. judges to deny consistent attempts to include religious doctrine in science curricula. In doing so, this study provides a detailed baseline to i CREATIONISM IN UNITED STATES PUBLIC SCHOOLS which future arguments can be compared to highlight new—or simply recycled—points in the debate, and to identify any potential strategies for alleviating this on-going and costly dispute. ii CREATIONISM IN UNITED STATES PUBLIC SCHOOLS Acknowledgements My grateful appreciation goes to my supervisor, Dr. Ann Marie Hill for her patience and great attention to detail throughout my work, and to my committee member, Dr. Azza Sharkawy, who has unfailingly directed my thinking in fresh and challenging directions. Greg’ Fitzgerald, best friend for longer than memory can recollect, and a debating partner that leaves most graduate students floundering in his wake. Thank you for reminding me that winning a debate is so very far from changing a belief. Without my wife, my love and partner through all endeavours great and small, I would never have even begun my graduate studies, much less produced anything worthwhile. My love and unending gratitude go to Lorraine Godden. Always. As an immigrant to Canada who has only recently successfully taken his Canadian citizenship examinations, I am keenly aware that Canadian immigration, post-graduate study, and life in our adopted country would not have been at all possible without the love and support, in all ways practical and emotional of Lorraine’s parents, John and Joyce Barber. Lastly, but far from last in my thoughts and feelings, are the two people that have taught me the very definitions of hard work, love and selflessly dedicated support—my own mother and father, Pat and Roy Godden. I am certain that anyone in education would agree, that parents who put their children before themselves in all things are not as frequent as they should be—I can only hope to follow in their example. iii CREATIONISM IN UNITED STATES PUBLIC SCHOOLS Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ i Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iii List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. viii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 A Definition of Terms: Creationism and the Central Tenets of Evolution ................................. 1 Purpose ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Research Questions ..................................................................................................................... 5 Decision Makers .......................................................................................................................... 6 A Summation............................................................................................................................... 7 Chapter 2 Rationale and a Review of the Literature ....................................................................... 8 Why the Controversy? ................................................................................................................. 8 The United States Constitution—Religious Clauses: History, Intent, and the Evolution of the Creationist Challenge .................................................................................................................. 8 The Lemon Test .......................................................................................................................... 9 The Endorsement Test ............................................................................................................... 10 Avoiding the prongs of purpose and effect. .......................................................................... 12 Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)................................................................................................. 12 Edwards v. Aguillard (1987). ................................................................................................ 13 Beyond the Lemon Test ............................................................................................................ 13 McLean v. Arkansas (1982). .................................................................................................. 13 Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005). .................................................................................................... 14 Creation Science vs. the Science of Evolution: What is Science? ............................................ 16 iv CREATIONISM IN UNITED STATES PUBLIC SCHOOLS Creation Science is Not Actually Science ................................................................................. 16 If it is Testable, then is it Science? ............................................................................................ 18 Testability .................................................................................................................................. 19 Is Creationism Even a Valid Area of Knowledge Production? ................................................. 20 Is Evolution Science? ................................................................................................................ 21 So the Situation is… .................................................................................................................. 23 The Debate Continues: An On-Going Problem for Legislators ................................................ 24 An On-Going Problem for Educators........................................................................................ 25 Awareness of legal requirements. .......................................................................................... 26 An On-Going Problem for Society............................................................................................ 27 Continuing support for creationist ideology—a socio-political perspective. ........................ 27 An On-Going Problem for Students .......................................................................................... 28 A Further Problem for Educators in the Classroom .................................................................. 34 Controversy? What controversy? .......................................................................................... 35 Controversy in the classroom. ............................................................................................... 36 Creationism and ID in the science classroom. ....................................................................... 38 A non-scientific worldview. .................................................................................................. 39 Theoretical Framework and the Contributions of this Research ............................................... 40 Constructivism—two