Download Rutgers Model Congress

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.