| Part of a series on |
| Creationism |
| Types of creationism |
|
Young Earth creationism |
| Mythology and theology |
|
Creation myth |
| Creation science |
|
Baraminology |
| Controversy |
|
History |
| Particular religious views |
| Book · Category · Portal |
| Part of a series on |
| Evolutionary biology |
|---|
|
Key topics
|
|
Natural history
|
|
Social implications
|
| Evolutionary Biology Portal Category • Related topics • Book |
The status of creation and evolution in public education has been the subject of substantial debate in legal, political, and religious circles. Globally there is a wide range of views on the topic ranging from countries not allowing teachers to discuss the evidence for evolution or the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the scientific theory that explains evolution, to mandating that only evolutionary biology is to be taught.
While some religions do not have theological objections to the modern evolutionary synthesis as an explanation for the present form of life on Earth, there has been much conflict over this matter within particular fundamentalist branches of Christianity,[1] some adherents of which are vigorously opposed to the consensus view of the scientific community. Conflict with evolutionary explanations is greatest in literal interpretations of religious texts.
Globally, evolution is taught in science courses with limited controversy, with the exception of a few areas of the United States and several Islamic fundamentalist countries. In the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled the teaching of creationism as science in public schools to be unconstitutional. In the United States, intelligent design has been presented as an alternative explanation to evolution in recent decades, but its "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions" have been ruled unconstitutional by a lower court.[2][3][4][5]
Contents |
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.[6]
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 widespread acceptance of the theory of evolution in the 1860s after being first introduced in 1859, and developments in other fields such as geology and astronomy, public schools began to teach science that was reconciled with Christianity by most people, but considered by a number of early fundamentalists to be directly at odds with the Bible.
In the aftermath of World War I, the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy brought a surge of opposition to the idea of evolution, and following the campaigning of William Jennings Bryan several states introduced legislation 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, and continued campaigning succeeded in removing evolution from school textbooks throughout the United States.[7][8][9]
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 amounted to 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.
There continue to be numerous efforts to introduce creationism in US classrooms. One strategy is to declare that evolution is a religion, and therefore it should not be taught in the classroom either, or that if evolution is a religion, then surely creationism as well can be taught in the classroom.[10]
In the 1980s 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 assert that ID is a pseudoscience because its claims cannot be tested by experiment (see falsifiability) 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, conservative think-tank,[11] 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 ..."[12]
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. Dawkins has stated that teaching creationism to children is akin to child abuse.[13]
In 1996, the Alabama State Board of Education adopted a textbook sticker that was a disclaimer about evolution. It has since been revised and moderated.[14]
In August 2008 Judge Otero ruled in favor of University of California in Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Stearns agreeing with the university's position that various religious books on U.S. history and science, from A Beka Books and Bob Jones University Press, should not be used for a college-preparatory classes.[15] The case was filed in spring 2006 by Association of Christian Schools International against the University of California claiming religious discrimination over the rejection of five courses as college preparatory instruction.[16] On August 8, 2008, Judge Otero entered summary judgment against plaintiff ACSI, upholding the University of California's standards.[15] The university found the books "didn't encourage critical thinking skills and failed to cover 'major topics, themes and components'" and were thus, ill-suited to prepare students for college.[15]
On February 19, 2008, the Florida State Board of Education adopted new science standards in a 4-3 vote. The new science curriculum standards explicitly require the teaching of the "scientific theory of evolution",[17] whereas the previous standards only referenced evolution using the words "change over time."[18]
In 2002, six parents in Cobb County, Georgia in the case Selman v. Cobb County School District 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 August 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.[19] The school board subsequently decided to appeal the decision.[20][21] 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.[22]
On December 20, 2006, the Cobb County Board of Education abandoned all of its legal activities and will no longer mandate that biology texts contain a sticker stating "evolution is a theory, not a fact." Their decision was a result of compromise negotiated with a group of parents, represented by the ACLU, that were opposed to the sticker. The parents agreed, as their part of the compromise, to withdraw their legal actions against the board.[23]
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."[24] This decision was hailed by creationists, and sparked a statewide and nationwide controversy with scientists condemning the change.[25] 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.[24]
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,"[26] which opponents analyzed as effectively stating that intelligent design should be taught.[27] 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—incidentally the day of the Dover school board election which failed to re-elect incumbent creationists (see #Pennsylvania).
In Kansas' state Republican primary elections on August 1, 2006, moderate Republicans took control away from the anti-evolution conservatives,[28] leading to an expectation that science standards which effectively embraced intelligent design and cast doubt on Darwinian evolution would now be changed.[29]
On February 13, 2007, the Kansas State Board of Education approved a new curriculum which removed any reference to Intelligent Design as part of science. In the words of Dr Bill Wagnon, the board chairman, "Today the Kansas Board of Education returned its curriculum standards to mainstream science". The new curriculum, as well as a document outlining the differences with the previous curriculum, has been posted on the Kansas State Department of Education's website.[30]
In October 1999, the Kentucky Department of Education replaced the word "evolution" with "change over time" in state school standards.[31]
On 12 June 2008, bill (SB561) or the "Louisiana Academic Freedom Act" passed into law.
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 required critical analysis of evolution, but did not specifically mention intelligent design. This decision was reversed in February 2006 following both the conclusion of the Dover lawsuit and repeated threats of lawsuit against the Ohio Board.[32][33]
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."[34] 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.[35] 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."
On November 7, 2007 the Texas Education Agency director of science curriculum Christine Comer was forced to resign over an e-mail she had sent announcing a talk given by an anti-Intelligent Design author. In a memo obtained under the Texas Freedom of Information act, TEA officials wrote "Ms. Comer's e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker's position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral".[36] In response over 100 biology professors from Texas universities signed a letter to the state education commissioner denouncing the requirement to be neutral on the subject of Intelligent Design.[37]
In July 2011, the Texas Board of Education, which oversees the Texas Education Agency, did not approve anti-evolution instructional materials submitted by International Databases, LLC, while continuing to approve materials from mainstream publishers.[38]
Despite proponents' urging that intelligent design be included in the school system's science curriculum, the school board of Chesterfield County Public Schools in Virginia decided on May 23, 2007, to approve science textbooks for middle and high schools which do not include the idea of intelligent design. However, during the board meeting a statement was made that their aim was self-directed learning which "occurs only when alternative views are explored and discussed", and directed that professionals supporting curriculum development and implementation are to be required "to investigate and develop processes that encompass a comprehensive approach to the teaching and learning" of the theory of evolution, "along with all other topics that raise differences of thought and opinion." During the week before the meeting, one of the intelligent design proponents claimed that "Students are being excluded from scientific debate. It's time to bring this debate into the classroom", and presented "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism".[39][40]
In 2000, a People for the American Way poll among Americans found that:
In 2006, a poll taken over the telephone 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.[42] The poll's results may be called into question however, because the wording of the poll question implies that significant scientific evidence against evolution exists to be taught.
Over the past few years, there have been several attempts to undermine the teaching of evolution in public schools. Tactics include claims that evolution is "merely a theory", which exploits the difference between the general use of the word theory and the scientific usage, and thus insinuates that evolution does not have widespread acceptance amongst scientists; promoting the teaching of alternative pseudosciences such as intelligent design; and completely ignoring evolution in biology classes. In general, these controversies, at the local school district level, have resulted in Federal and State court actions (usually by parents who are opposed to teaching of religion in school). There have been a number of consequences of these activities:
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 Lenox 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 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.[48]
On October 4, 2007, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted its resolution 1580 titled The dangers of creationism in education. The resolution observed that "the war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements", and urged member states "to firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution and in general resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion"[49]
The Assembly's work leading to adopting the resolution began in 2006, when several delegates of the assembly, led by British Labour politician Andrew McIntosh, suggested to adopt a recommendation on this theme.[50] During drafting, the report and draft resolution[51] were prepared by the delegate from the French Socialist Party Guy Lengagne (fr)
The report was returned by PACE to its Committee on Culture, Science and Education for revision in June 2007 with 63 votes against 46,[52] at the request by the leader of the Christian Democratic group in the Assembly Luc Van den Brande.[53] Reuters noted that calling off the debate and vote "also won support from east European deputies, who recalled that Darwinian evolution was a favorite theory of their former communist rulers"[54]. The procedure used for the referral was criticized by the Assembly's Committee on Culture, Science and Education.[55] After the revision by a new rapporteur, Anne Brasseur, a delegate from Luxembourg representing the Liberal group in the Assembly[56] and several amendments made by the Assembly, the resolution was adopted, by 48 votes against 25.[57]
The resolution's aim is "to warn against certain tendencies to pass off a belief as science … the Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effect of the spread of creationist ideas within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights".[58] It rejects that creationism in any form, including "intelligent design", can be considered scientific (Para. 4), but considers possible its inclusion in religion and cultural classes (Para. 16). The resolution concludes that teaching creationism in school as a scientific theory may threaten civil rights (Paras. 13 and 18). The resolution summarizes itself in Para. 19:[59]
The Parliamentary Assembly therefore urges the member states, and especially their education authorities to:
- defend and promote scientific knowledge;
- strengthen the teaching of the foundations of science, its history, its epistemology and its methods alongside the teaching of objective scientific knowledge;
- make science more comprehensible, more attractive and closer to the realities of the contemporary world;
- firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution and in general the presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion;
- promote the teaching of evolution as a fundamental scientific theory in the school curricula.
After the rejection of Lengagne's report, the former rapporteur was interviewed on the subject by the French newspaper 20 Minutes, where he evaluated the events as follows: "We're assisting a return to the Middle Ages".[60]
The resolution was criticised by deputy head of the Department of External Church Relations of the Russian Orthodox Church Vsevolod Chaplin stating that "those few fossils presented by the antropologists as examples of ape-human transitional forms could be explained by casual mutations. We don't claim to found a new species upon finding a fish with two heads, after all".[61] and by the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Albert Mohler considering that "this can only mean that Europe (at least as represented by the Council of Europe) has forgotten even its Christian memory".[62]
In February 2009, the resolution was a starting point of a conference held in Dortmund and led by D. Graf from the Dortmund University of Technology. The conference, including participation of Anne Brasseur, among others, was held in cooperation with the Max Planck Institute, University of Vienna and Hacettepe University and with support from German Ministry of Education and Research.[63]
The International Society for Science and Religion has published an article criticizing the resolution for being too restrictive while disapproving of Young-Earth creationism and ID movement.[64]
The resolution was also covered, among other sources, by Radio Vaticana reiterating the characterization of evolution as more than a hypothesis by the pope Benedict XVI.[65] Deutsche Welle, covering the disagreement among members of the Assembly on whether the resolution constituted an attack on religious beliefs,[58] and Die Welt, pointing to journalists-expressed suspicions of wishing to limit freedom of conscience and Brasseur's response that the aim was to draw a line between the spheres of faith and science.[66]
On April 25, 2007, Member of Parliament Martin Henriksen (Danish People's Party) asked Minister of Education Bertel Haarder (The Liberal Party) for information about how many educational institutions had received The Atlas of Creation by Harun Yahya.[67] The minister responded that the Ministry of Education was not in possession of information about the number of educational institutions that had received the book, that choice of educational material was not up to the ministry, and that it is an objective of the discipline biology in primary school that the education must enable the pupils to relate to values and conflicts of interest connected with issues with a biological content.[68]
In interview sessions during 2002, less than 10% of the interviewed Danes declared the theory of evolution false.[69]
In the Netherlands some factions teach creationism in their own schools. In May 2005, a discussion on Intelligent Design erupted when education minister Maria van der Hoeven suggested that debate about Intelligent Design might encourage discourse between the country's various religious parties. She sought to "stimulate an academic debate" on the subject. Following strong objection from the nation's scientists,[70] she dropped plans of holding a conference on the matter.[71] After the 2007 elections, she was succeeded by Ronald Plasterk, described as a "molecular geneticist, staunch atheist and opponent of intelligent design".[72]
In 1986, the then minister of education Kjell Magne Bondevik proposed new education plans for the elementary and middle school levels which included skepticism to the theory of evolution and would hold that a final answer to the origin of mankind was unknown. The proposal was withdrawn after it had generated controversy.[73]
Poland saw a major controversy over creationism in 2006 when the deputy education minister, Mirosław Orzechowski, denounced evolution as "one of many lies" taught in Polish schools. His superior, Minister of Education Roman Giertych, has stated that the theory of evolution would continue to be taught in Polish schools, "as long as most scientists in our country say that it is the right theory." Giertych's father, Member of the European Parliament Maciej Giertych, has however opposed the teaching of evolution and has claimed that "dinosaurs and humans co-existed because Poles remember the Wawel Dragon and Scots knows about the Loch Ness monster".[74]
In Serbia the teaching of evolution was suspended for one week in 2004, under education minister Ljiljana Čolić, only allowing schools to reintroduce evolution into the curriculum if they also taught creationism.[75] "After a deluge of protest from scientists, teachers and opposition parties" says the BBC report, Čolić's deputy made the statement, "I have come here to confirm Charles Darwin is still alive" and announced that the decision was reversed.[76] Čolić resigned after the government said that she had caused "problems that had started to reflect on the work of the entire government."[77]
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.[78] 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:
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.
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.[79][80]
An organisation calling itself Truth in Science has distributed teaching packs of creationist information to schools, and claims that fifty-nine schools are using the packs as "a useful classroom resource".[81] 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.[82]
The efforts to introduce creationism and intelligent design into schools in the UK is being opposed by the British Centre for Science Education. The BCSE has been involved in government lobbying and has a website which presents information on the relevant issues.[83][84][85]
In December 2006, a schoolgirl in St. Petersburg, Russia and her father decided to take the teaching of evolution in Russian schools to court. The position of the Russian Ministry of Education supports the theory of evolution. The suit has been backed by representatives of Russian Orthodox Church.[86][87] In February, 2007, the first instance court, and in July, the second instance court have ruled in favour of the ministry.[88]
As of 2005, evolution was not taught in Pakistani universities;[71] however, the grade 12 Biology textbook contains a chapter on Evolution, and presents it as a fact. In 2006, the Pakistan Academy of Sciences became a signatory of the InterAcademy Panel Statement on "The teaching of evolution".[89] Many of the contemporary titles on the creation-evolution controversy, such as those by Richard Dawkins, have been translated into Urdu.[90]
In Turkey, a mostly Islamic country, evolution is often a controversial subject. Evolution was added to the school curriculum shortly after the Turkish Revolution of the 1920s and 30s.[91] There was some resistance to this, such as that of Said Nursî and his followers, but opposition was not particularly powerful.[91] In the 1980s, conservatives came into power, and used the ideas of scientific creationists in the US as a method of discrediting evolution (notwithstanding material on the age of the earth, which Islamic creationism is less specific about).
One anti-evolutionist group in Turkey is the Istanbul based Bilim Arastirma Vakfi (BAV), or "Science Research Foundation", which was founded by Adnan Oktar. Its activities include campaigns against the teaching of evolution. It has been described as one of the world's strongest anti-evolution movements outside of North America.[92] US based creationist organizations such as the Institute for Creation Research have worked alongside them. Some scientists have protested that anti-evolution books published by this group (such as The Evolution Deceit) have become more influential than real biology textbooks. The teaching of evolution in high schools has been fought by Ali Gören, a member of parliament and professor of medicine, who believes such education has negative effects.
The situation is very fragile, and the status of evolution in education varies from one government to the next. For example, in 1985 Education Minister Vehbi Dincerier had scientific creationism added to high school texts, and also had the discredited Lamarckism presented alongside Darwinism. Only in 1998 was this changed somewhat, with texts presenting a more balanced view, though still mentioning creationism and Lamarckism.[92] At present the moderate Islamist Justice and Development Party, which is sympathetic to creationist views,[91] holds power. It was elected in 2002 and again with a greater majority in 2007.
In general, material that conflicts with religious beliefs is highly controversial in Turkey. For example, in November 2007 a prosecutor launched a probe into whether biologist Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion is "an attack on religious values". Its publisher could face trial and up to one year in prison if the prosecutor concludes that the book "incites religious hatred" and insults religious values.[93]
Turkish academics who have defended evolutionary theory have received death threats, for instance biologist Aykut Kence received an email telling him to enjoy his "final days".[92] Kence helped establish the Evolution Group, whose aim is to improve public understanding of evolution. However, opposition to creationism is not very powerful; Umit Sayin, a neurologist, describes academics and universities as "slow and sluggish" in their response. Kence maintains that "if knowledgeable people keep quiet, it only helps those who spread nonsense."[92]
Although creationist views are popular among religious education teachers and creationist teaching materials have been distributed by volunteers in some schools,[94] many Australian scientists take an aggressive stance supporting the right of teachers to teach the theory of evolution, unhindered by religious restrictions.
| “ | An essential element in the teaching of science is the encouragement of students and teachers to critically appraise the evidence for notions being taught as science. The Society states unequivocally that the dogmatic teaching of notions such as Creationism within a science curriculum stifles the development of critical thinking patterns in the developing mind and seriously compromises the best interests of objective public education. This could eventually hamper the advancement of science and technology as students take their places as leaders of future generations. | ” |
|
—Geological Society of Australia[95] |
||
In 2004, teaching of creationism in religious education classes by Rio de Janeiro's education department sparked protest from Brazilian scientists.[71]