 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Background to evolution/creation controversies
Efforts to undermine the teaching of evolutionary biology have been underway for decades. Despite the publicity, these efforts did not end with the famous 1925 Scopes trial, dramatized in the film "Inherit the Wind".
It was not until 1968 that the Supreme Court struck down laws that banned the teaching of evolution (Epperson v Arkansas). Creationists responded by trying to pass legislation calling for "balanced treatment" of evolution and "creation science". Two such laws were struck down in the 1980s, including a Louisiana law ruled unconstitutional in the Supreme Court's 1987 Edwards v Aguillard decision.
Creationism continues to evolve. Recent antievolution strategies include "teach the controversy" and "Intelligent Design".
How common are evolution-creation controversies? In 1999-2000, NCSE learned of a new state or local problem more than once a week - for a recorded total of 143. Not all problems reach us; this may be the tip of an iceberg. The issue is not restricted to a particular region: from January 1999 through December 2000, we dealt with some new or ongoing controversy in 34 states.
What are the major anti-evolution strategies?
These fall into two categories:
Watering down evolution education by:
- Attempts to change the role of evolution in science standards, as happened in Kansas in 1999. Some attempts are more successful than others. In recent years, there was a significant amount of opposition (by the public and/or state Board of Education members) to inclusion of evolution in science education standards in: Michigan, Illinois, Arizona, Texas, Alabama, New Mexico, Nebraska, Kansas, Idaho and Kentucky, among others.
- Adoption of textbook disclaimers or anti-evolution policy statements (one such disclaimer was ruled unconstitutional in Freiler v Tangipahoa). In November of 2001, Alabama remained the only state to have a disclaimer by adopting one for the second time, though it was substantially weakened from the original.
- Opposition to adoption of textbooks with good coverage of evolution, at both state and local levels. On July 30, 2001 the North Branch, Michigan school board voted to adopt a new high school environmental science textbook following a two month delay. One board member had objected because the book does not refer to creationism and does not refer to evolution as a "theory". Further delay would have meant no textbooks when school began.
- Various forms of anti-evolution legislation: since 1990 - Georgia, Ohio, Tennessee, New Hampshire, West Virginia, New Mexico [in the same year, a bill supporting evolution was also introduced], North Carolina, Washington, Florida. Indiana, Kentucky, Arizona
- Parents or administrators pressuring teachers to water down or eliminate teaching about evolution, or excuse some children from studying it ("opting out" is subject to different policies in different states). In one case, a school superintendent had teachers glue together pages of an earth science textbook that discussed the "big bang" because the Genesis account wasn't also presented)
Direct support of "creation science" through:
- Attempts to have creationist books adopted for classroom or school library use
- Outside speakers presenting explicitly religious views in classrooms or at assemblies. Dan Clark, a chemistry teacher in Lafayette, Indiana, was reprimanded for inviting a creationist speaker to address his class.
- Teachers presenting "creation science" or "evidence against evolution". In one case a teacher sued for the right to do so. Rodney LeVake, a science teacher from Faribult, Minnesota, has appealed his case to the Supreme Court. He claims that not being allowed to teach "evidence against evolution" violates his right to freedom of religion.
- Use of misleading euphemisms such as "intelligent design theory" or "alternatives to evolution"
- Miscellaneous activities such as an attempt to get a zoo to change signs that discussed animal diversity in terms of evolution
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|