Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Rutgers Model Congress State: California/Republican Committee: Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor And Pensions Topic: Creation Science Vs. Evolution in the Classroom Name: Senator Samantha Pedreiro East Brunswick High School 1 As stated in Act II, Scene II of Inherit The Wind, a renowned play addressing the famed Scopes “Monkey” Trial, (which sought to keep the teaching of evolution out of schools), “The Bible is a book. A good book. But it’s not the only book”(Lawrence and Lee 62). This is the view among many Americans who think it is morally wrong to disregard the legislation that separates church and state, and to teach creation science, defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as: “a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis”(“Creationism” 1). However, many other Americans believe that it is unfair to teach the theory of evolution, defined as, “a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations,” and not the theory of creation science (“Creation Science” 1). As convoluted as the situation may be, it is within California policy to teach evolution in biology classes without interlacing views about the “divine origin of the universe” (Pierce 1). Although Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species was published over one hundred years ago, there is just as much controversy today as there was in 1859. There is still debate over whether or not creationism and evolution are theories or whether they are scientific fact. Opponents of either evolution or creationism criticize the other by saying that it is just theory, because there is no observable evidence and no research that can be done in a laboratory to test either one (Gish 267). Thus, it is unacceptable to many to teach fallacies or to teach mere theory in public schools, influencing the young and impressionable minds of students. One problem with teaching creation science is that it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which reads as follows, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” (“Constitution of the United States of 2 America”). Furthermore, creationists fail to recognize the very important precedent that the Founding Fathers of the United States set—separation of church and state, and secular public education systems (Boles 171). This is a very advanced westernized concept that many have failed to grasp the importance and necessity of if the United States is to continue to be a democratic and accepting nation of all religions, creeds, races, and ethnicities. There have been many court cases in protest of teaching said theories in public schools starting with the famed State v. John Scopes case, also known as the Scopes “Monkey” Trial. John Scopes, a high school biology teacher, was tried for teaching evolutionary theory in a Tennessee school. He was found guilty of illegally teaching the theory of evolution; however, the decision of the court did not have as much impact in the long run, as it made people question across the United States, the legality and morality of what was taught in public schools (Linder 1). In fact, between 1922 and 1929 forty-six pieces of legislation were introduced that tried to prevent the teaching of evolution in schools. In total, only three were passed, and they were later repealed, but this was the start of one of the ongoing debates of our time (Edwords 362). In response to this new movement of trying to prohibit evolutionary theory from schools, many schools refused to teach either, trying to avoid all conflict whatsoever. However, with the new surge of technology in the late 1960s—that was brought on by the Russian-American Space Race—many demanded that more advanced sciences be taught in schools. In 1964, the National Science Foundation introduced textbooks to schools that reintroduced evolution into schools, and with this, reintroduced debate on the issue (Edwords 364). However, creationists tried to promote the teaching of creation science in schools by using different tactics then they had previously tried; this time around, they argued that in fairness, they should be allowed the same amount of time that evolution was taught in schools. 3 Their intention was that if evolution was taught for a few weeks, then so should creation sciences. With this, almost all states have introduced “equal time” bills, and more than twenty states have policies allowing local districts to include alternatives to evolution, including creationism (Edwords 364-365). It is important to remember that with the Scopes v. State Case (1925), commonly known as the Scopes Monkey Trial, the ruling was that it was illegal to ban the teaching of evolution (Scopes’s conviction was overturned by a higher court). It was also deemed illegal to ban the teaching of any other theory of origins —creationism included (Linder 1). This question of whether or not to teach evolution is an important and prevalent issue that is often biased in accordance to one’s own personal beliefs. With that, the state of California feels that it is important to teach evolution in schools, and it promotes students questioning of scientific observations and theories; however, it does not condone the teaching of evidence against evolution (“California Science Teachers Association Policy Statement on the Teaching of Evolution” 1). Simply, it promotes the teaching of all schools of thought, but will not try to disprove evolution. Furthermore, according to the California Science Teachers Association (CSTA), “To fully appreciate and acquire an understanding of life on Earth, one must know a great deal about present-day forms and their history. For this reason, evolution is a necessary part of everyone’s education” (“California Science Teachers Association Policy Statement on the Teaching of Evolution” 1). In fact, the CSTA believes that, “It makes as little sense for a biology teacher to present life on Earth as a collection of static entities as it would for a social studies teacher to present civics and geography without their historical contexts” (“California Science Teachers Association Policy Statement on the Teaching of Evolution” 1). California was one of 24 states to pass equal time legislation as to promote the teaching of evolution among other 4 scientific theories equally (Scott 1). Quoting the California State Board of Education Policy on the Teaching of Natural Sciences (1989), it reads, in part, Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught dogmatically [and] scientific theories are constantly subject to testing, modification, and refutation as new evidence and new ideas emerge" … teachers are expected to help students analyze the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories, including the theory of evolution. (Scott 3) Although California is a fairly liberal and open-minded state, there is a small conflict of interest between state and party. The Republican Party advocates the teaching of intelligent design and/or creationism in schools due to the equal time legislation principles (Baker and Slevin A01). In fact, President George W. Bush noted that, “Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about," adding: "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought...You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes"(Baker and Slevin A01). Furthermore, Gary Bauer, a Christian conservative leader, urges Americans to recognize that it—creation science should being taught in public schools— is a valid view that is held by “the majority of Americans” (Baker and Slevin A01). Additionally, John G. West of the Discovery Institute, a pro-intelligent design think tank, remarked on President Bush’s views saying that he should be commended for defending free speech on evolution, and supporting the right of students to hear about different scientific views (Baker and Slevin A01). Through the numerous local, state, federal and Supreme Court cases, there are obvious discrepancies over what to do with regard to solutions for the creation science versus evolution debate. One possible solution would be to adopt the Two-Model Approach discussed by Richard Bliss in the an article entitled, “A Two Model Approach to Origins: A Curriculum Imperative” (Bliss 194). In it Bliss states that the role of the teacher should be to generate inquiry among 5 students rather than to disseminate information. Students will be encouraged to use aspects of the Scientific Method (such as observation, classification, formulating a hypothesis, etc.) and The National Education Association’s “ Spirit of Science” principles (including respect for logic, demand for verification, questioning all things, etc.) to evaluate both theories. Those who have used this method now fully appreciate the advantage of being able to weigh the logic of two theories, rather than being told what to think. In the words of Bliss, “A Two-Model Approach to Origins should not include sectarian religion for the public schools; the approach should base its emphasis on the interpretation of the scientific data presently available” (Bliss 194). He discusses a six-step method in which the teacher facilitates, but does not influence his students as they research, and present their findings through innovative methods such as film presentations (Bliss 194). This method is one that opens up a classroom to lively discussion, which should be encouraged; however, it should be emphasized that evolution is a science, and it should be firmly etched into the science curriculum, whereas, creation science should not be. The liberal state of California supports the sharing of differing views/perspectives on this issue, but worries that creation science would be placed into the curriculum, which is not the intention of this twopronged method. This is a difficult problem to address because it involves religion and beliefs, which are inherently controversial; therefore, when addressing this issue, all sides have to be respectful of each other’s views, and must be willing to listen to all sides of the argument. After all, in the words of Richard Bliss, “Science should be a search for truth” (Bliss 194). 6 Works Consulted “Americans United Sues California School District Over ‘Intelligent Design’ Class.” Americans United for Separation of Church and State. 10 January 2006. Online. Internet. <http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=7783&security=1002& news_iv_ctrl=1241> 28 February 2007. Baker, Peter and Peter Slevin. “Bush Remarks on ‘Intelligent Design’ Theory Fuel Debate.” Washington Post 3 August 2005: A01. Bliss, Richard B. “A Two-Model Approach to Origins: A Curriculum Imperative.” Evolution Versus Creationism: The Public Education Controversy. Ed. J. Peter Zetterberg. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press, 1983. Boles, Donald E. “Religion in the Schools: A Historical and Legal Perspective.” Did the Devil Make Darwin Do it? Eds. David B. Wilson and Warren D. Dolphin. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State University Press, 1983. “California Science Teachers Association Policy Statement on the Teaching of Evolution. California Science Teachers Association. Online. Internet. <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,922471-5,00.html> 3 March 2007. “Creation on Trial.” Northwest Creation Network. Online. Internet. <http://www.nwcreation.net/trials.html> 28 February 2007. Edwords, Frederick. “Why Creationism Should Not Be Taught as Science: The Legal Issues. Evolution versus Creationism: The Public Education Controversy. Ed. J. Peter Zetterberg. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press, 1983. Gish, Duane T. “Creation, Evolution, and the Historical Evidence.” But is it Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/ Evolution Controversy. Ed. Michael Ruse. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1988. Keith, Arthur. Evolution and Ethics. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1947. Kline, David. “Theories, Facts, and Gods: Philosophical Aspects of the Creation-Evolution Controversy.” Did the Devil Make Darwin Do it? Eds. David B. Wilson and Warren D. Dolphin. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State University Press, 1983. Lawrence, Jerome and Robert E. Lee. Inherit the Wind. New York: Bantam Books, 1960. Linder, Douglas O. “State v. John Scopes ("The Monkey Trial").” UMKC School of Law. Online. Internet. <http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/evolut.htm> 3 March 2007. Pierce, Kenneth M. “Putting Darwin Back in the Dock.” Time Magazine. 16 March 1981. 7 Online. Internet. <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,922471-5,00.html> Ruse, Michael. The Evolution Wars. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO Inc., 2000. Schafersman, Steven. “Significant Court Decisions of the Evolution-Creation Controversy in America.” Texas Citizens for Science. 3 October 2003. Online. Internet. <http://www.texscience.org/files/court-cases/> 28 February 2007. Scott, Eugenie C. “In My Backyard: Creationism in California.” National Center for Science Education: Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools. 18 August 2005. Online. Internet. <http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8521_in_my_backyard_creationism_in_8_1 8_2005.asp> 3 March 2007. Secord, James A., ed. Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation and Other Evolutionary Writings. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1994. “Segraves v. California (1981) Evolution and Free Exercise of Religion. About: Agnosticism/ Atheism. Online. Internet. <http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/evo/bldec_SegravesCalifornia.htm> 28 February 2007. “Teaching Evolution: A State-by-State Debate.” National Public Radio. 20 December 2005. Online. Internet. <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4630737> 28 February 2007. “The Teaching of Evolution in the Science Curriculum Controversy in Science.” Creation Science Research Center (San Diego). 2003. Online. Internet. <http://www.parentcompany.com/csrc/teachevo.htm> 28 February 2007. West, John. California School District Adopts Policy Allowing Scientific Criticisms of Evolution. Evolution News and Views. 22 March 2006. Online. Internet. <http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/03/california_school_district_ado.html> 1 March 2007.