Creation and evolution in public education

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of the series on Creationism

History of creationism Creation in Genesis Genesis as an allegory
Types of creationism: Creation science Intelligent design Islamic creationism Modern geocentrism Neo-Creationism Omphalos creationism Old Earth creationism Progressive creationism Theistic evolution Young Earth creationism
Controversy: Creation vs. evolution ... in public education Associated articles Teach the Controversy

The legal status of creation and evolution in public education is the subject of a great deal of debate in legal, political, and religious circles, mainly in the United States.

1 United States
2 United Kingdom
3 References
4 See also
5 External links

[edit] United States

In the United States, creationists and proponents of evolution are engaged in a long-standing battle over the legal status of creation and evolution in the public school science classroom.

[edit] Early law

Until the late 19th century, creation was taught in nearly all schools in the United States, often from the position that the literal interpretation of the Bible is inerrant. With the development of the theory of evolution, and developments in other fields such as geology and astronomy, public schools began to teach science that was considered by many to be directly at odds with the Bible.

In reaction, in the early 20th century, people such as William Jennings Bryan introduced legislation in several states prohibiting the teaching of evolution. By 1925, such legislation was being considered in 15 states, and passed in some states, such as Tennessee. The American Civil Liberties Union offered to defend anyone who wanted to bring a test case against one of these laws. John T. Scopes accepted, and he taught his Tennessee class evolution in defiance of the Butler Act. The textbook in question was Hunter's Civic Biology (1914).

The trial was widely publicized by H. L. Mencken among others, and is commonly referred to as the Scopes Monkey Trial.

Scopes was convicted; however, the widespread publicity galvanized proponents of evolution.

When the case was appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court, the Court overturned the decision on a technicality (the judge had assessed the fine when the jury had been required to). Although it overturned the conviction, the Court decided that the law was not in violation of the First Amendment. The Court held,

"We are not able to see how the prohibition of teaching the theory that man has descended from a lower order of animals gives preference to any religious establishment or mode of worship. So far as we know, there is no religious establishment or organized body that has in its creed or confession of faith any article denying or affirming such a theory." Scopes v. State 289 S.W. 363, 367 (Tenn. 1927).

The interpretation of the Establishment clause up to that time was that Congress could not establish a particular religion as the State religion. Consequently, the Court held that the ban on the teaching of evolution did not violate the Establishment clause, because it did not establish one religion as the "State religion." As a result of the holding, the teaching of evolution remained illegal in Tennessee.

[edit] Modern legal cases

In 1967, the Tennessee public schools were threatened with another lawsuit over the Butler Act's constitutionality, and, fearing public reprisal, Tennessee's legislature repealed the Butler Act. In the following year, 1968, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas that Arkansas's law prohibiting the teaching of evolution was in violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the Establishment Clause prohibits the state from advancing any religion, and determined that the Arkansas law which allowed the teaching of creation while disallowing the teaching of evolution advanced a religion, and was therefore in violation of the 1st amendment Establishment clause. This holding reflected a broader understanding of the Establishment Clause: instead of just prohibiting laws that established a state religion, the Clause was interpreted to prohibit laws that furthered religion. Opponents, pointing to the previous decision, argued that this was judicial activism.

In reaction to the Epperson case, creationists in Louisiana passed a law requiring that public schools should give "equal time" to "alternative theories" of origin. The Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that the Louisiana statute, which required creation to be taught alongside evolution every time evolution was taught, was unconstitutional.

The Court laid out its rule as follows:

"The Establishment Clause forbids the enactment of any law 'respecting an establishment of religion.' The Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether legislation comports with the Establishment Clause. First, the legislature must have adopted the law with a secular purpose. Second, the statute's principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute must not result in an excessive entanglement of government with religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-613, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2111, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971). State action violates the Establishment Clause if it fails to satisfy any of these prongs." Edwards v. Aguillard 482 U.S. 578, *582-583, 107 S.Ct. 2573, 2577 (U.S.La.,1987).

The Court held that the law was not adopted with a secular purpose, because its purported purpose of "protecting academic freedom" was not furthered by limiting the freedom of teachers to teach what they thought appropriate; ruled that the act was discriminatory because it provided certain resources and guarantees to "creation scientists" which were not provided to those who taught evolution; and ruled that the law was intended to advance a particular religion because several state senators that had supported the bill stated that their support for the bill stemmed from their religious beliefs.

While the Court held that creationism is an inherently religious belief, it did not hold that every mention of creationism in a public school is unconstitutional:

"We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. Indeed, the Court acknowledged in Stone that its decision forbidding the posting of the Ten Commandments did not mean that no use could ever be made of the Ten Commandments, or that the Ten Commandments played an exclusively religious role in the history of Western Civilization. 449 U.S., at 42, 101 S.Ct., at 194. In a similar way, teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction. But because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to endorse a particular religious doctrine, the Act furthers religion in violation of the Establishment Clause." Edwards v. Aguillard 482 U.S. 578, 593-594, 107 S.Ct. 2573, 2583 (U.S.La.,1987)

Just as it is permissible to discuss the crucial role of religion in medieval European history, creationism may be discussed in a civics, current affairs, philosophy, or comparative religions class where the intent is to factually educate students about the diverse range of human political and religious beliefs. The line is crossed only when creationism is taught as science, just as it would be if a teacher were to proselytize a particular religious belief.

[edit] Movements to teach creationism in schools

In the 1980's Phillip E. Johnson began reading the scientific literature on evolution. This led to the writing of Darwin on Trial, which examined the evidence for evolution from religious point of view and challenged the assumption that the only reasonable explanation for the origin of species must be a naturalistic one, though science is defined by searching for natural explanations for phenomena. This book, and his subsequent efforts to encourage and coordinate creationists with more credentials was the start of the "Intelligent Design" movement. Intelligent design asserts that there is evidence that life was created by an "intelligent designer" (mainly that the physical properties of an object are so complex that they must have been "designed"). Proponents claim that ID takes "all available facts" into account rather than just those available through naturalism. Opponents (along with the rest of the scientific community) assert that ID is a pseudoscience because its claims cannot be tested by experiment (see falsifiable) and do not propose any new hypotheses.

Many proponents of the ID movement support requiring that it be taught in the public schools. For example, the Discovery Institute and Phillip E. Johnson, support the policy of "Teach the Controversy", which entails presenting to students evidence for and against evolution, and then encouraging students to evaluate that evidence themselves.

While many proponents of ID believe that it should be taught in schools, other creationists believe that legislation is not appropriate. Answers in Genesis has said:

"AiG is not a lobby group, and we oppose legislation for compulsion of creation teaching ... why would we want an atheist forced to teach creation and give a distorted view? But we would like legal protection for teachers who present scientific arguments against the sacred cow of evolution such as staged pictures of peppered moths and forged embryo diagrams ..."^[1]

Opponents point out that there is no scientific controversy, but only a political and religious one, therefore "teaching the controversy" would only be appropriate in a social studies, religion, or philosophy class. Many, such as Richard Dawkins, compare teaching intelligent design in schools to teaching flat earthism, since the scientific consensus regarding these issues is identical.

[edit] Recent developments in state education programs

In 1996, the Alabama State Board of Education adopted a textbook sticker disclaimer. It has since been adopted by other states and individual counties.^[2]

On August 11, 1999, by a 6–4 vote the Kansas State Board of Education changed their science education standards to remove any mention of "biological macroevolution, the age of the Earth, or the origin and early development of the Universe", so that evolutionary theory no longer appeared in state-wide standardized tests and "it was left to the 305 local school districts in Kansas whether or not to teach it."^[3] This decision was hailed by creationists, and sparked a statewide and nationwide controversy with scientists condemning the change.^[4] Challengers in the state's Republican primary who made opposition to the anti-evolution standards their focus were voted in on August 1, 2000, so on February 14, 2001, the Board voted 7–3 to reinstate the teaching of biological evolution and the origin of the earth into the state's science education standards.^[3]

In October 1999, the Kentucky Department of Education replaced the word "evolution" with "change over time" in state school standards.^[5]

In 2000, a People for the American Way poll among Americans found that:

29% believe public schools should teach evolution in science class but can discuss creationism there as a belief;
20% believe public schools should teach evolution only;
17% believe public schools should teach evolution in science class and religious theories elsewhere;
16% believe public schools should teach creation only;
13% believe public schools should teach both evolution and creationism in science class;
4% believe public schools should teach both but are not sure how.

(1% had no opinion) ^[6]

In 2002, proponents of intelligent design asked the Ohio Board of Education to adopt intelligent design as part of its standard biology curriculum, in line with the guidelines of the Edwards v. Aguillard holding. In December 2002, the Board adopted a proposal that permitted, but did not require, the teaching of intelligent design.

In 2002, six parents in Cobb County, Georgia sued to have the following sticker removed from public school textbooks: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." Selman v. Cobb County School District, No. 1:02CV2325 (N.D. Ga. filed Aug. 21, 2002).

Defense attorney Gunn said, "The only thing the school board did is acknowledge there is a potential conflict [between evolution and creationism] and there is a potential infringement on people's beliefs if you present it in a dogmatic way. We're going to do it in a respectful way."
Gerald R. Weber, legal director of the ACLU of Georgia, said "The progress of church-state cases has been that the [U.S.] Supreme Court sets a line, then government entities do what they can to skirt that line. ... Here the Supreme Court has said you can't teach creationism in the public schools. You can't have an equal-time provision for evolution and creationism. These disclaimers are a new effort to skirt the line."
Jefferey Selman, who brought the lawsuit, claims "It singles out evolution from all the scientific theories out there. Why single out evolution? It has to be coming from a religious basis, and that violates the separation of church and state."
The School Board said it adopted the sticker "to foster critical thinking among students, to allow academic freedom consistent with legal requirements, to promote tolerance and acceptance of diversity of opinion and to ensure a posture of neutrality toward religion."

On January 14, 2005, a federal judge in Atlanta ruled that the stickers should be removed as they violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment ^[7]. The school board subsequently decided to appeal the decision.^[8]^[9] In comments on December 15, 2005 in advance of releasing its decision, the appeal court panel appeared critical of the lower court ruling and a judge indicated that he did not understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis.^[10]

In 2004 the Dover, Pennsylvania School Board voted that a statement must be read to students of 9th grade biology mentioning Intelligent Design. This resulted in a firestorm of criticism from scientists and science teachers and caused a group of parents to begin legal proceedings (sometimes referred to as the Dover panda trial) to challenge the decision, based on their interpretation of the Aguillard precedent. Supporters of the school board's position noted that the Aguillard holding explicitly allowed for a variety of what they consider "scientific theories" of origins for the secular purpose of improving scientific education. Others have argued that Intelligent Design should not be allowed to use this "loophole."^[11] On November 8, 2005, the members of the school board in Dover were voted out and replaced by evolutionary theory supporters. This had no bearing on the case.^[12] On December 20, 2005 federal judge John E. Jones III ruled that the Dover School Board had violated the Constitution when they set their policy on teaching intelligent design, and stated that "In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

In 2004 Kansas Board of Education elections gave religious conservatives a majority and, influenced by the Discovery Institute, they arranged the Kansas evolution hearings. On August 9, 2005, the Kansas State Board of Education drafted new "science standards that require critical analysis of evolution – including scientific evidence refuting the theory,"^[13] which opponents analysed as effectively stating that intelligent design should be taught.^[14] The new standards also provide a definition of science that does not preclude supernatural explanations, and were approved by a 6-4 vote on November 8, 2005 – the same day, interestingly, on which the Dover school board members were voted out (see above).

In 2006, a telephone poll by Zogby International commissioned by the Discovery Institute found that more than three to one of voters surveyed chose the option that biology teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also "the scientific evidence against it". Approximately seven in ten (69%) sided with this view. In contrast, one in five (21%) chose the other option given, that biology teachers should teach only Darwin's theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it. One in ten was not sure. The wording of the poll question implies that significant "scientific evidence" against evolution actually exists to be taught (see push polling) - a proposition with which less than one half of one percent of scientists with relevant expertise would agree. ^[15]

In Kansas state's Republican primary elections on August 1, 2006, moderate Republicans took control away from the anti-evolution conservatives,^[16] leading to an expectation that science standards which effectively embraced intelligent design and cast doubt on Darwinian evolution would now be changed.^[17]

[edit] U.S. legal quotations

The Supreme Court, Epperson v. Arkansas (1968):

“...the First Amendment does not permit the state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma...the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them.”

McLean v. Arkansas case (1982), the judge wrote that creation scientists:

“...cannot properly describe the methodology used as scientific, if they start with a conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation.”

The Supreme Court, Edwards v. Aguillard (1987):

“...Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to advance a particular religious belief, the Act endorses religion in violation of the First Amendment.”

In Webster v. New Lennox School District (1990), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated:

“If a teacher in a public school uses religion and teaches religious beliefs or espouses theories clearly based on religious underpinnings, the principles of the separation of church and state are violated as clearly as if a statute ordered the teacher to teach religious theories such as the statutes in Edwards did.”

The 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court wrote in a California case (Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, 1994):

“The Supreme Court has held unequivocally that while belief in a Divine Creator of the universe is a religious belief, the scientific theory that higher forms of life evolved from lower ones is not.”

United States District Court Judge John E. Jones III stated thus in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 2005:

"We have concluded that Intelligent Design is not science, and moreover that I.D. cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious antecedents."

From ^[18].

[edit] United Kingdom

In each of the countries of the United Kingdom, there is an agreed syllabus for religious education with the right of parents to withdraw their children from these lessons. The religious education syllabus does not involve teaching Creationism, but rather teaching the central tenets of major world faiths.^[19] At the same time, the teaching of evolution is compulsory in publicly funded schools. For instance, the National Curriculum for England requires that students at Key Stage 4 (14-16) be taught:

that the fossil record is evidence for evolution
how variation and selection may lead to evolution or to extinction.

Similar requirements exist in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

In 2003 the Emmanuel Schools Foundation (previously the Vardy Foundation after its founder, Sir Peter Vardy) sponsored a number of "faith-based" academies where evolution and creationist ideas would be taught side-by-side in science classes. This caused a considerable amount of controversy.

A 2006 poll indicated that more than 40% of Britons believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.^[20]

The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams, leader of the Church of England, has expressed his view that creationism should not be taught in schools.^[21]^[22]

An organisation calling itself Truth in Science has distributed teaching packs to schools, and claims that fifty-nine schools are using the packs as "a useful classroom resource".^[23] The government has stated that "Neither intelligent design nor creationism are recognised scientific theories and they are not included in the science curriculum. The Truth in Science information pack is therefore not an appropriate resource to support the science curriculum." It is arranging to communicate this message directly to schools.^[24]