Note: I do not know why the background changes to white half way through my post. I've tried editing several times to correct the problem, but blogger continues to publish the wonky colors. If you highlight the text you will be able to read it. Anyone who can tell me how to fix this problem, please leave a comment on the post.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The saga of evolution and education should not be news to anyone. Individuals and groups opposed to evolution being taught in schools raise the battle cry at the drop of a hat, and their persistence is bordering on sociopathiological. Some simply want evolution to be banned from the science curriculum, but others have decided to push for the inclusion of religion (dressed in the sheep’s clothing of “Intelligent Design”) in the science classrooms of public schools. I’d like to take some time to acquaint you with two landmark cases that made it to court trial.
The first of these trials is the State [or Tennessee] v. John Scopes, also known as “The Monkey Trial.” William Jennings Bryan sought to banish the teaching of evolution in schools as part of his bid for presidency. At the time, teaching evolution in a public school was against the law in Tennessee, but John Scopes, a high school biology teacher, assigned readings on evolution because he believed that biology cannot be taught without evolution. He even got these readings from the state approved biology text, Hunter’s Civic Biology. Scopes, in league with George Rappalyea, agreed to stand for trial in defense of teaching evolution. The defense team was extensive, and included Herbert and Sue Hicks, John Neal, Clarence Darrow, Arthur Hays, and Dudley Malone. The prosecution team consisted of A.T. Stewart, Ben McKenzie, and William Bryan Jr. The goal of the trial was to overturn the law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in schools. The turnout for the trial was so impressive that it had to be held outdoors on the courthouse lawn. Scopes was found guilty and fined $100, which please the defense because it allowed them the opportunity to appeal to the state Supreme Court. Sadly, this case ends in a rather anti-climactic manner. The original court decision was reversed on a sentencing technicality, and then dismissed from further action. It is counted historically, as a win for the pro-evolution movement, however. This case took place in 1925. More information on this trial can be found here, and there are several books published on “The Monkey Trial.”
Fast forward to 2004, and we’re still fighting the same battle over evolution being taught in schools. This time the battle ground is in Dover, Pennsylvania and started when the school board passed a policy requiring science teachers to read the following disclaimer before teaching evolution:
Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.”
Science teachers and parents alike pushed back, with teachers sending in a formal response and refusing to read the statement, and parents filing case in court for the violation of the separation of church and state. An excerpt of the response from teachers:
“Central to the teaching act and our ethical obligation is the solemn responsibility to teach the truth. Section 235.10 (2) guides our relationships with students and provides that "The professional educator may not Knowingly and intentionally misrepresent subject matter or curriculum."
INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT SCIENCE. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT BIOLOGY. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT AN ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC THEORY.
I believe that if I as the classroom teacher read the required statement, my students will inevitably (and understandably) believe that Intelligent Design is a valid scientific theory, perhaps on par with the theory of evolution. That is not true. To refer the students to "Of Pandas and People" as if it is a scientific resource breaches my ethical obligation to provide them with scientific knowledge that is supported by recognized scientific proof or theory.”
The full text of the response can be read here.
In contrast with the Stokes trial, which simply sought to ban evolution from being taught, the Dover trial (formally known as Kitzmiller v. Dover) was focused on the inclusion of “Intelligent Design” (ID) in the science classroom. Jerry Coyne, in his book Why Evolution is True (2009) mentions that the Dover trial was “billed as the ‘Scopes Trial of our century’,” and the trial is nicknamed “The Panda Trial” after the name of the ID book that was being offered up as the scientific counter to evolution, Of Pandas and People.
This trial attracted as much attention as its predecessor, and the pro-evolution group was worried, since the judge for the trial, Judge John Jones III, was appointed by G.W. Bush and a conservative Republican. However, these fears proved to be unfounded as the following verdict was read:
“It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science…In summary, the [school board’s] disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text [Of Pandas and People] as though it were a science resource, and instructs student to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead seek out religious instruction elsewhere” (Coyne, 2009).
The Panda Trial is an unambiguous win for the pro-evolution group, and its importance in school policy is ongoing as the battle for evolution education continues. More information on the Dover trial can be found here, and is based on the excellent NOVA documentary of the trial (in recreation) called Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial.
I found this post particularly interesting because I personally have never heard of these trials. It is interesting to see that evolution being taught in schools has been a long-standing fight in some states. I was born and raised in a suburb of San Francisco, California and I decided to research to see if there was any controversy in California about evolution being taught in public schools. I found that in 1981 there was a case called Segraves v. State of California in which a father (Kelly Segraves) of three schoolchildren sued the state of California for denying his children the right to exercise their religion due to the fact they were forced to listen and be taught evolutionary biology in the classroom. The ruling of the court was against Mr. Segraves and for the State of California.
ReplyDeleteI personally attended private Catholic school from first grade to twelfth grade. As expected we were taught creationist thinking in our mandatory religion classes but we were also taught some evolutionary thinking in our science classes. I remember in high school biology we were taught about Charles Darwin and his contributions to genetics and evolution. We were also taught about the big bang theory and how man and all creatures had evolved over time. I think the school I went to did a very good job of giving us both views and left creationist thinking in religion class and evolutionary thinking in science classes.
Information on Segraves v. State of California:
http://ncse.com/taking-action/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism
I definitely agree with what both you and Rachel Mahoney said. I have never heard of either of these trials either, but I find the content particularly interesting. I myself am Catholic, but have to gone to public schools all my life. As you know, teachers are not allowed to teach about Creationism. Being a Catholic, being taught about the theory of Evolution contradicted what I was being taught in the church and at home. I feel in agreement with what those in favor of teaching Intelligent Design in the Dover trial. By including Intelligent Design in the curriculum, then both sides of this ongoing debate would be satisfied.
ReplyDeleteIf the public school system insists on teaching evolution as a theory of origins, in the view of many a religious activity, why is it discriminating against the only other theory of origins, intelligent design? (There is, by the way, no third theory of origins that anyone has ever been able to determine.) At the very least, school textbooks should acknowledge that evolution is a theory of origins, it has not been proved, and that many scientists do not accept it.
To ugo uba,
ReplyDeleteIntelligent Design has actually been shown to be as unscientific as straight up biblical creationism. That's the point of the Dover trial: unmasking religion masquerading as science.
Yes, to be clear there is no "ongoing debate" in the scientific community about evolution vs. intelligent design; anymore than there is "ongoing debate" about whether the earth is flat or round, or whether HIV causes AIDS. There are certainly credentialed scientists that believe that HIV does not cause AIDS (in fact, Lynne Margulis, member of the National Academy of Sciences, champion of the endosymbiont hypothesis for the origins of mitochondria believed this, she died recently) or that the earth is flat; but that does not mean we should teach these concepts in a science class or that there is "ongoing debate". Science is not determined by public opinion.
ReplyDeleteEvolution is not proven because science never proves anything. It as robustly a supported theory as any however. As I said at the beginning of class, evolution IS NOT a theory of origins, that is the theory of abiogenesis. Evolution is a theory of descent with modification and common ancestry of all life on earth, which is robustly supported by the continual accumulation of massive amounts of evidence.
If you don't believe me, you might listen to this statement by Todd Wood, a PhD young-earth creationist who teaches at Bryan College:
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html
I want to emphasize that I encourage and welcome all of you to argue and criticize the theory of evolution if you believe you see flaws, holes, dubious claims, or anything that makes you doubt it's validity. Do not hide your doubts, but have a conversation to find out how evolutionary biologist explain these phenomena. You may never be fully convinced and that is fine, but you should know fully the structure of the argument, be free of any misconceptions, and to be able to argue cogently and effectively both sides of any issue.
Mr. Uyeda, I very much agree with your statement that it is important to be "able to argue cogently and effectively both sides of any issue." If you plan to argue a point about which you understand very little then your argument will be futile. Likewise, if you can not defend your beliefs because you do not understand their contradictions then how can you personally be assured that what you believe is true?
ReplyDeleteI attended public school from first through tenth grade and then transferred to a private Christian school; therefore I have been exposed to public school evolution education as well as private school evolution education. I feel my high school also did an excellent job of presenting evolution as a successful scientific theory in my general and advanced biology classes. We also examined the long history of the controversy surrounding teaching evolution versus teaching creationism or intelligent design, including the “Scopes Monkey Trial,” in my biological ethics class. There have been many court trials pertaining to this; I found a list of the top 10 court cases about evolution and creationism:
http://ncse.com/taking-action/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism
However, the argument about whether we should teach evolution in schools or not is no-longer up for debate. And rightfully so. As Todd Wood stated, evolution is not flawed, “it is an extremely successful scientific theory.” Choosing to accept or reject evolution is a personal choice of faith but, because of its scientific validity, it is important to educate ourselves about its massive amounts of supporting evidence.
p.s. Thank you for recommending Todd Wood’s blog. I really like it!
The continuing controversy and legal battles over evolution really show what a gap there is between the culture of scientists and the general American culture. I remember I was in middle school when I first learned about evolution. Mendelism and Darwinism were pretty much the only thing we learned, and these were really interesting. Not growing up in a religious household, I had little idea that what I was learning was seriously controversial, and many Americans don't think we should teach it. The logic of natural selection and the usefulness of evolution in explaining natural patterns seemed, and still seems, pretty unassailable. I suppose it's what happens when science tries to encroach on an area of knowledge that many religious sects try to provide. It's interesting how, despite the technological and scientific advantage the US enjoys, it still hasn't warmed up to evolution, as Uyeda showed in class, and as these hot spots in law history show.
ReplyDeleteThere was actually a movie made based on the Scopes Trial, called Inherit the Wind. It's not quite a historical documentary, but may still be interesting to people here.
(-Robert MacGregor)
I think this article shows a great problem with our nation as a whole. People often confuse intelligent design as science and not philosophy. Intelligent design is no more of a science than existentialism. In fact, confusing the two is inherently dangerous. If humanity always wrote off every scientific happening as intelligent design, society would not question the universe, and society would not be where it is today.
ReplyDeleteIntelligent design should be held out of science classes, but it does not need to be held out of school. Firstly, it should be recognized that intelligent design and evolution are not polar opposites trying to prove the other one incorrect. They are different topics altogether. Putting the two in the same class will confuse students and enrage parents on both sides of the argument. With that being said, the best resolution is a philosophy course being added to schools. Philosophy classes can highlight the various religions that believe in creationism so that students are still exposed and educated on the topic.
Ebaad proposes an interesting solution that mirrors the experiences of several other students. I'm not sure that the use of taxpayer dollars to teach different religious views in public schools would go over any better than the arguments for the inclusion of Intelligent Design, but there are some interesting arguments for it. As stated by several posters, the inclusion of a philosophy class in their education left them feeling well-balanced. I had never considered this as a possible solution for public schools until now. Personally, I am not a religious person, but I do see value in understanding the beliefs of others, especially such inescapable and powerful beliefs. Josef, you stated that it is important to understand and be able to argue both sides of an argument and I couldn't agree more. As a culture we think it is important for all children to have a knowledge of world history so they can understand their experience in the context of the bigger picture. Couldn't the same justification stand for teaching philosophy? I think an overview of world religions and the impact that those have had in shaping the world that we live in could only enrich the education of our children. An open discussion of world religion may also combat some of the closed-minded thinking that leads to such inane arguments as the ones presented by the prosecution in both of these landmark trials. Meanwhile, evolutionary biology could be taught in the way that it should be; as the only theory upheld by extensive scientific research and as close to fact as is possible in the scientific community.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was in high school, I took a comparative world religions class. It was a very interesting and fun class, and I learned all sorts of different theories of creation. Creation or intelligent design (which ever label people prefer) does belong in schools in an anthropological context. It isn't science, however, and shouldn't be treated as such. It's not testable, it's not falsifiable, and it teaches people not to ask questions and instead just accept things for how the designer created them. If people are in need of alternative theories, why not come up with an alternative to gravity? Maybe gravity is the result of a flying spaghetti monster holding us down with its undetectable noodly appendages. It can't be disproved, but should it be taught as science?
ReplyDeleteAnother Catholic chiming in. Did you all know that the Catholic church accepts evolution? I just wanted to clarify this, because it seems that a couple previous posts may not have known, but I may have misinterpreted there. Nonetheless, I come into contact with people all the time who never know that, so I feel it's worth mentioning. The following is a quote from Pope John Paul II's message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution in 1996:
ReplyDelete"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis."
I think it is important to recognize that evolution is science and religion is faith, and the two cannot be measured with the same ruler, and that many faiths actually accept evolution as a likely true scientific theory, and agree that it is compatible with their religious teachings on the origin of life. I am certainly not trying to change anyone's beliefs here, just presenting my thoughts.
An aside before I close, I like "unknown"'s comment before me: "It isn't science, however, and shouldn't be treated as such." I feel that pretty much sums up my feelings on this topic.
I recently had a conversation with my ultra-conservative friend. She told me that she has a hard time believing evolution because it is "just a theory."
ReplyDeleteI countered: "You know, gravity is just a theory too. Whether you believe it or not, it's still keeping your ass on the couch."
Obviously I was being a little smart with her, but I feel that the amount of Americans that don't believe in evolution is ridiculous.
What is even more outrageous is that the people that try to disprove evolution use the most fallacy-ridden reasons I have ever heard.
Josef did a great job of addressing all of the terribly wrong things that these people say in class. I hope that some day everyone can be on the same page about this topic.
At one point in history: everyone thought the sun revolved around the earth, that the earth was flat, gravity was witch craft, and evolution was blasphemy.
Hopefully before our generation is history, this scientific "theory" will fall into the same category of these other once doubted theories.
Sam Sarsten