Introduction

Since the time of Darwin and his theory of evolution, the more traditionally held belief that God created the entire universe has battled with the belief in the new scientific perspective of creation. This controversy still persists especially in the realm of the classroom. What should teachers be teaching--creationism, evolution, or some mixture of the two to give equal time to both parties? The scientific community is in great distress over this controversy because scientists believe that the creationist view is totally unscientific and therefore should not be taught in the science classroom. The creationists on the other hand, do not want their children to be taught an idea they do not believe in, especially as a fact.

Where does this debate leave the public school teacher? He or she is caught somewhere in the middle between trying to teach a class scientific information and maintaining peace with the parents and the community. Most people believe that the Scopes trial in 1925 took care of the problems about teaching evolution, however, these problems still exist. The trial ruled that evolution can be taught in the schools, but new laws and court cases are still happening today. I admit that I believe in teaching only evolution in the classroom. I think that creationism is not scientific and therefore should not be taught as a part of science. Where does this controversy leave me then? What does Virginia say about teaching evolution? What does my hometown of Lynchburg (where I hope to start my teaching career) believe is right? This one issue can lead to tension in a classroom and community and is something that every science teacher (especially biology) has a good chance of encountering at some point in his or her teaching career.

Shocking facts

Very influential well-known figures have demonstrated a strong opinion stating that creationism is equal or better than evolution and should be present in the schools. When he was a presidential candidate in 1980, President Reagan said in a speech that evolution was only a theory and has been challenged recently in science. He stated that it is not yet believed by the science community as infallible and if it is taught in schools, then creationism should also be taught because creationism is not just a theory, it is the biblical story of creation. Justices in the Supreme Court are also opinionated on the subject. In the Supreme Court ruling in 1987 on the Louisiana Creationism Act of 1981 William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia dissented saying that "creation science" is a body of scientific knowledge and should be taught in schools (Berra, 1990).

Evolution versus Creation

The first step to understanding this controversy is to understand what each side argues and believes.

Evolution

First I will explain the scientific base on which the theory of evolution is grounded. All scientific ideas go through a process called the scientific method that tests these ideas or hypotheses. Over time, many scientists test hypotheses using different systems, equipment, and organisms. If none of the tests refute the hypothesis and that hypothesis is the best explanation available for the data, then it could be made into a theory. A scientific theory, unlike its ordinary use in everyday English, is not a guess; it is a repeatedly confirmed hypothesis. Many people confuse a scientific theory for a guess that scientists make, and think that something that is actually a very concrete idea or fact is instead "just a theory" and a guess that has no concrete credibility. Theories, such as the theory of relativity, are well-accepted explanations in the scientific world. From a theory, a scientist can make more predictions about the world and test them. Another requirement of a theory is it must always be capable of being falsified. This requirement means that a theory has to be able to be proven false by an experiment. All of these requirements make a scientific theory not "just a theory," it is the final part of the scientific method and the foundation of a large area of knowledge (Berra, 1990).

Evolution is one scientific theory. According to Douglas Zook (1995), it is the unifying theme in biology. Said a different way, without evolution, biology is just a pile of nonsensical facts (Chmelynski, 1994). Evolution is not just about the origin of life on the Earth. In a broad sense, evolution just means that the universe has a history and change through time has taken place (NSTA, 1997). Evolution is the change of gene frequency because of natural selection and other processes in which the environment selects for certain variations in a population. Populations have many variations within them. Some animals are bigger than others; some have bigger feet, longer legs. Each of these characteristics is a variation that could be selected for in an environment and, by selecting one variation over another, the gene frequency is changed. Different environments would also select for different things based on the hardships found there. Some evidence used to show evolution is common aspects among all organisms at the very smallest levels. Each living thing has DNA and the same molecules and methods for metabolic energy transformation.

The one debated element of evolution now is the rate at which evolution occurs. This one disagreement between evolutionists is sited by the creationists as the proof that evolution is doubted within the scientific community. The two opposing hypotheses are gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. In gradualism, evolution takes place by a gradual accumulation of mutations. Punctuated equilibrium states that very little change takes place over a long period of time and then in a short period of time, a great deal of change occurs because of new pressures of the environment. This debate does not ever state that evolution is wrong. Scientists still believe that evolution occurred, they just disagree on the rate and way in which occurred.

Evolution can occur to create new species and to make changes in already existing ones. It is through evolution that all the diversity on the Earth is present. However, in America, evolution, which is the "central unifying theory of a major discipline accepted almost without exception in the rest of the educated world, must be smuggled in the back door of the classroom" to avoid offending creationists (Berra, 1990, p. 123)

Creationism

Fundamentalist Christians who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible and its inerrancy support creationism. The literal interpretation of the Bible by the fundamentalists can be contrasted with most Christians and Jews who read the Bible as a mystery, allegory, or metaphor (Berra, 1990). Creationists believe in a strict and literal interpretation of Genesis and believe that God created the world in six days and that everything seen now has remained the same throughout the 10,000 years they believe the Earth has existed. Some of the major points of creationism are the fossil record and a water-vapor canopy. During the creation of the world, God separated the waters above and below. The creationists believe this to mean that a water-vapor canopy existed that blocked ultraviolet rays and maintained an even warm climate around the Earth. They use this to explain the giant creatures found in the fossil record around the world even in now-cold areas of the Earth like the North and South poles. The creationists also claim that all the fossils were laid down, not over millions of years, but during the Flood with Noah's ark. This would have caused huge numbers of animals to die and settle to the bottom of the water where they would be covered by the shifting sediment as a result of the Flood, which they claim to be of a tidal nature. The fossils found are usually contorted in positions that creationists describe as the agony of drowning. Creationists also say that God created all things at once because in the fossil record many kinds of animals just suddenly appear. Creationists believe that there are no transitional fossils in the fossil record, which should exist if evolution is true (Baker, 1976).

There are modifications on creationism that are not as strict or literal. Progressive creationists believe that all living things and planets were created as they are found today, but do not strictly interpret the Bible when calculating the age of the planet (Alters, 1997, Jackson, Doster, and Meadows, 1997). Theistic evolution, another modification, is some people's way of joining science and religion. It states that evolution took place over a long period of time as seen, but it was directed by a deity to culminate in humans (who are made in God's image) (Jackson, Doster, and Meadows, 1997)

Creation science has been called the alternate perspective to evolution by creationists (Alters, 1997). Creation science takes the literal story of Genesis and puts it into scientific language. The principle advocate of "scientific creationism" is the Creation Research Society (CRS). To be part of the CRS a member must have an advanced degree in some field of science and sign a statement of faith declaring, among other things, the Bible is historically and scientifically true, the book of Genesis is a fact, and that God created everything in six days. Most of these members are engineers, chemists, aerospace workers, technicians, and computer specialists (Berra, 1990). Each of these members is technically a scientist, but they specialize in branches that do not deal with any aspect of evolution and therefore do not have the scientific authority to refute evolutionary principles. Creationists believe that neither creationism nor evolution fulfill scientific requirements since the creation of the Earth and further development is not observable, so evolution is not scientific and therefore creation science doesn't have to be scientific. The creationists even bring evolution to a religious level by calling it a secular faith (Chmelynski, 1994).

Creationists believe that evolution is definitely false and should not belong in the classroom without creationism being taught as well. They believe that since evolution is driven by mutation and mutation is "always a change for the worst" that evolution is wrong (Hanson, 1986, p.17). On the other hand, the story of creation comes from the Bible that is innerant and cannot be wrong.

Conflicting ideas

Many people believe that science can mesh with religion even in the creation story. For instance according to Pope Pius XII in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis, Catholics are free to accept any science theory about human origins as long as at some point God gave man an immortal soul (Berra, 1990 p.124). However, the creationists who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible are not able to reconcile the two. They do not want their children taught as facts the basic ideas of evolution such as humans descended from "ape-like creatures" (Baker, 1976 p.3). Creationists believe that the Bible is right and anything that contradicts it is wrong (Berra, 1990 p.4).

Evolutionists say that the "Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go" (Berra, 1990 p.124). They believe that the fundamentalists have promoted "creation science," which hides the religious nature of creation with science terms, in order to have it be taught alongside of evolution. The evolutionists believe that the proper place for religious beliefs is at church or in the home, not in a biology class (Berra, 1990).

There is speculation to why some religions have responded so strongly against this aspect of science. For some people science is equivalent to anti-religion and learning science undermines religion. Other speculation believes that there is an ultraconservative political movement towards a more moral America. This is seen in the rejection of evolution because if evolution shows that we share an ancestry with animals, then we are nothing more than animals ourselves and therefore don't have to keep from acting like animals (Berra, 1990 p.142)

These beliefs and conflicting opinions are where the teacher is torn between teaching evolution only or being "fair" and teaching creation as well.

Teaching Evolution

Broad view

According to all the scientific experts that I read, evolution only should be taught in a science classroom. Teaching creationism is not "fair" because it is not science and it is religion, which should not be taught in school. The NSTA (1997) states that science teachers should not advocate any religious view on creation. The ACLU has said that if it can't be scientifically proven, then it should not be taught in a science classroom (Chmelynski, 1994 p.16). Bishop and Anderson (1990) have shown that teaching evolution does not change a child's beliefs. The children do not have to accept the idea as replacing what they were taught to be able to understand the concept and to answer test questions about it.

Teachers, however, have a hard time with what to teach. Many science teachers are not prepared to teach evolution. They do not understand the ideas that are parts of it and have a shaky understanding of the nature of science like the exact definition of a scientific theory. Therefore, they give in to the well-meaning belief that they are just being "fair" by teaching creationism. If a better understanding of science on the part of the teachers existed, then problems with evolution could be avoided (Lawton, May 1998). Teachers also rely too heavily on mutation as the only explanation of how evolution could happen. It is difficult to understand how mutations, which are usually harmful, drive the whole process of evolution. Symbiosis is frequently overlooked as causing many evolutionary changes in organisms. For example, it was through symbiosis that mitochondria and chloroplasts were added to cells and changed their abilities greatly. (Zook, 1995, p.1112).

When teachers do cave in to the pressure to teach creation, it is a threat to science. Creation is not always discussed as the word "creation" though. There are many euphemisms that allow the concept to sneak into the classroom. Evidence against evolution, intelligent design (meaning there is an omnipotent, supernatural designer), and abrupt appearance (life appeared suddenly) are all examples of such euphemisms that teachers need to be aware of and careful about teaching (Chmelynski, 1994).

Teachers do need to let their students know that everything has not been figured out in any science yet. Often in a science classroom the material is presented as already fully understood. The understanding can change though and it does not necessarily prove a theory completely wrong. Scientists do not find all the answers at once; it takes time and corrections to get a theory exactly right. One way of presenting this is the discussion between gradual and punctuated equilibrium. This discussion does not show that evolution is wrong, but it gives students a sense of how the scientific method works and allows them to think about the evidence for themselves (Clinchy, 1997).

The National Academy of Sciences recently published a guide for teachers to help them understand evolution and the nature of science. This book, Teaching about evolution and the nature of science, is not an attack on creationism. According to Rodger Bybee, a member of the National Research Council's Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education, "it's about teaching biology effectively, not how to argue with creationists effectively" (Lawton, April 1998 p.9). This book was needed because the teachers didn't know enough and therefore the students weren't learning enough. In addition, because teachers had a lack of knowledge and there has been an attack on evolution, textbook publishers no longer emphasize evolution in the science textbooks (Lawton, April 1998).

The way to confront creationists is to have informed teachers. According to Wayne Moyer (1986), part of the way for teachers to approach the subject effectively is to concentrate on how the universe works, not why; to encourage critical thinking; to require understanding, not belief; to encourage the students to think about any moral issues that are impacted and to discuss them with parents or clergymen; and to realize that science does not rule out religious belief. In following these approaches, the student learns the material without so much controversy or concern since they are not forced to believe it. In addition, the student also gains the ability to be a more critical thinker about important issues which can carry on throughout his or her life.

Survey of Biology Teachers

In Kentucky, William Ellis (1986) conducted a survey of the state's teachers to determine their personal background, how they feel about teaching evolution, and any resistance they have received. The results of the survey showed that 91% of the teachers surveyed are religious and a majority said that teaching evolution has not been a problem in either the classroom or with the public. A majority of the teachers did approve of having a voluntary use of creationism in the classroom, though. A section was provided for the teachers to express any feelings of their own and Ellis condensed the most often heard comments into a possible statement of the majority:

We teach the theory of evolution because it has been proven to be an integral part of the modern study of biology. We teach evolution as a theory, not as an indisputable fact. While we moderately stress the theory of evolution, we often mention the Biblical account of creation at an appropriate time. Students are encouraged to offer opposing views to evolution and they often do so. The teaching of evolution and/or creationism is not presently an issue in my classroom. Let us do our job without outside interference. Science education is already hindered by lack of funds and flagging public interest. Do not complicate our task by bringing religious issues into the schools. Above all, do not mandate instruction of 'scientific creationism' either by local school board edict or by legislation. (Ellis, 1986, p.80)

As I read this condensed possible opinion I was glad to see that the teachers understood the importance of evolution. However, the idea that it is taught as a theory and not a fact is a substantial scientific problem even more than mentioning creationism. Mentioning that creationism exists is teaching a fact, but by not explaining to the students what a theory is in scientific terms, the teacher is giving them wrong information because scientifically a theory is a fact.

Science Standards

National

According to the National Science Education Standards written by the National Research Council, all students should develop an understanding of many science concepts and processes including evolution. The definition of evolution in this requirement is "a series of changes, some gradual and some sporadic, that accounts for the present form and function of objects, organisms, and natural and designed systems" (National Academy of Sciences, 1998 p. 48). The standard includes other sciences as well as biology by mentioning that evolution also describes the changing universe. These standards are well spelled out and what follows is a summary. By eighth grade, students should understand adaptation and diversity and that evolution accounts for these. Students should also be taught all organisms were derived from a common ancestor based on comparative studies of organisms. By eighth grade students in earth science should understand that the same processes that exist today existed in the past. Students should be taught the scientific method and understanding that conflicting ideas about a body of evidence are an important part of determining the explanation.

In high school, students should understand the major themes of biological evolution: the evolution of species over time, natural selection, the diversity of all organisms due to over 3.5 billion years of evolution, and all organisms are related by common ancestors. For the earth and space standard, students should understand the origin and evolution of both the earth system and the universe including how the solar system formed 4.5 billion years ago and how this date was decided using fossils and radioactive decay. Students should understand that evidence of life extends back 3.5 billion years and that evolution of life has caused some major changes in the earth (National Academy of Sciences, 1998)

These national standards are very explicit in stating that evolution is a very important area of both biology and earth science. All students in this country should be taught this information in their science classes.

Virginia Standards

The Virginia Standards of Learning are considered to be some of the strictest guidelines in the nation. For evolution, however, they are not very clear or supportive. Life Science SOL LS.14 states that the "students will investigate and understand that organisms change over time. Key concepts include...evidence of evolution of different species in the fossil record" (Board of Education, 1995 p.45). Earth Science standards only mention the word evolution in relation to other stars. ES.2 states that students should "demonstrate scientific reasoning and logic by...evaluating evidence for scientific theories related to...the structure of the Earth and its ancient age and origin" (Board of Education, 1995 p.49). ES.14 says that the student should understand the "cosmology and origin of stars and stellar systems (the Big Bang, the solar nebular theory, stellar evolution...)" (Board of Education, 1995 p.50). In the elementary and Life Science SOLs evolutions is pretty clearly spelled out. However, in the Biology SOLs, when the students are the oldest and in the most specific Biology class and in the best class to discuss evolution, the word "evolution" is not even used. Standard BIO.8 reads:

The student will investigate and understand how populations change through time...[by] examining evidence found in fossil records; investigating how various traits, reproductive strategies, and environmental pressures impact on the survival of populations; recognizing how adaptations lead to natural selection; and exploring how new species emerge. (Board of Education, 1995 p.52)

This standard does include many of the aspects of evolution, but it avoids using the actual term evolution. Because of this, the teacher, if not educated properly about evolution, might miss the idea altogether and others might teach just the aspects separately without drawing them all together for the student to properly explain to the student the concept of evolution.

Lynchburg

While I was home for Fall Break, I decided to see what Lynchburg rules stated about the teaching of evolution because in just a few short years, they could be impacting me. I was unable to find any specific clause or rule about evolution, but I found a few items that when put together begin to paint a picture of the feelings in Lynchburg. In the School Board Bylaws, Policies, and Regulations, there were several policies that applied to the study of evolution. According to the Controversial Issues Policy the student has a right

1) to study any controversial issue which is of political, economic, or social significance and which is in the range, knowledge, maturity, and competency of the students, and which does not conflict with the State Board of Education regulations.

2) To study under competent instruction in an atmosphere free from bias and prejudice

3) To form and express his/her own opinions on controversial issues without jeopardizing his/her position within the school. (Lynchburg City School Board P6-4)

In this policy the role of the teacher is to give all sides of the issue to the students in a "dispassionate" manner and the goal is for the students to think for themselves and make their own decisions. "Indoctrination is not a policy of the Lynchburg City Schools" (Lynchburg City School Board P6-4). There is also a policy on religious observances that states that it is only appropriate for a school to offer a comparative religion course and it is important to avoid the implication that any religious doctrines have the support of the school division or state (Lynchburg City School Board R6-11). Even though these two policies look like they contradict with the idea of evolution (since it is a controversial issue, but also religious in nature), it seemed to me that they pointed towards the teaching of evolution without creationism, unless the teacher includes the creation stories of many major religions. That is just my interpretation of these two policies though and since it is vague it would be easy for others to mandate the teaching of creation because it is the other side of a controversial issue.

In the process of looking through the school board minutes to find any discussion about the adoption of new science books, I did come across an interesting comment made on May 21, 1996. The results of a parent survey were being discussed and it was mentioned that some parents were concerned with the "biology content" (School Board Minutes, 1996). Unfortunately the results were not kept on file, at least where I had access to them. To me, that comment could have been about evolution, but it could also be about a range of other topics.

In the first discussion that I found about science textbook adoption on June 4, the only questions that were asked were if the texts matched the SOLs and if they came with lab materials. At the meeting on June 18 though, when final approval of the textbooks was given, one man on the school board asked about the position on evolution. The Supervisor for Instruction answered the question by saying that in some sections of the biology and life science books evolution was discussed, but there was no position taken and the material was purely informational (School Board Minutes, 1996)

I decided to find out what "no position taken" and "purely informational" meant, so I went to a local middle school and asked to look at their books for a little bit. In the sixth grade textbook, evolution was stated as a fundamental concept in biology and defined that living organisms change over time. Fossils were described as evidence for this idea. The book presented two theories of evolution: Lamarks's theory of acquired characteristics and Darwin's theory of natural selection. The book then explained that Darwin's theory is the accepted theory of how life evolves (Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1993). In this book evolution was not put in a questionable light and no mention of creationism occurred. In the eighth grade textbook, several things about Earth's history were presented as facts: the age being 4.5 billion years, that humans have only been present for a fraction of that time, Darwin's theory of natural selection, and humans have a common ancestor with apes. When the origin of life was discussed, however, the language turned more vague and questioning. "Some scientists" think that life developed naturally on the earth. "Scientific evidence suggests" that conditions 4 billion years ago on Earth were different. The "possibility" of making cells from molecules has been demonstrated by several experiments (Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1997). There is still no discussion of creationism though. It seemed to me that the discussion of evolution was fine until the origin of life was discussed. Then, the textbook publishers were very careful to not take a strong stance possibly because of the fear that it would cause tension with the creationists.

Conclusion

The experts in the scientific field believe strongly that creation should not be taught in the schools. Unfortunately many teachers themselves are unclear on what evolution is and how to teach it. Teachers need to be trained in the basic principles of science so that they will not fall into the trap that teaching creation is fair. The best solution suggested is to help the teachers become stronger in their understanding of science and more confident in their ability to explain it. Only when children and their parents begin to hear what evolution really is will the fundamentalists feel less threatened by science and hopefully the tension will decrease.

The Future

When I become a teacher in Lynchburg in hopefully a year and a half, there probably will not have been significant changes from today. As a scientist I will teach my students evolution and I will not teach creationism in the classroom. If a student or a parent has a concern, I will discuss it outside of class, but it is a discussion that I feel is unfair to occur in the classroom because it is not scientific and it possibly does not affect every other child's religious views. I also understand that I will probably be questioned at some point in my career by a parent or maybe even a colleague and that I need to remain up to date on the facts of the controversy as long as it exists. Just because I might be questioned on my teaching though should not be an excuse to teach creation to be on the "safe side." If I were to teach creationism in my classroom, others might not question me, but I would have to question myself as a teacher who is there to teach her students science.

Alter, Brian. (1997). Hearts and Minds in the Science Classroom: the Education of a

Confirmed Evolutionist Revisited. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 34, 89-91.

Baker, Sylvia. (1976). Evolution: Bone of Contention. Phillipsburg, NJ: Evangelical

Press.

Berra, Tim M. (1990). Evolution and the Myth of Creationism. Stanford, Ca.: Stanford

University Press.

Board of Education. (1995). Standards of Learning for Virginia Public Schools.

Chmelynski, Carl. (1994). The "C" Word is Back: Creationism. The Education Digest.

60, 14-17.

Clinchy, Evans. (1997). The Great Non-problem of Evolution vs. Creationism.

Education Week. 16, 43+

Ellis, William E. Creationism in Kentucky: The Response of High School Biology

Teachers. . In (Ed.) Robert W. Hanson. (1986). Science and Creation:

Geological, Theological, and Educational Perspectives. New York:

MacMillan Publishing Co.

Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. (1993). Science Plus: Technology and Society Level

Green. Austin: Harcourt Brace Jonavich.

Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. (1997). Science Plus: Technology and Society Level Red.

Austin: Harcourt Brace and Co.

Jackson, David F., Doster, Elizabeth C., Meadows, Lee. (1997). Reply to Hearts and

Minds in the Science Classroom: the Education of a Confirmed Evolutionist

Revisited. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 34,93-94.

Lawton, Millicent. (April 1998). National Academy Guides Teachers on Evolution.

Education Week. 17 (31), 9.

Lawton, Millicent. (May 1998). Evolution Debate Accents Deeper Science Disquiet.

Education Week. 17 (34), 1+

Lynchburg City School Board. Lynchburg City School Board Bylaws, Policies, and

Regulations vol. 2 Manual 151.

Lynchburg City School Board Minutes (1996)

Moyer, Wayne A. Science versus Revealed Truth: Meeting the Challenge of Creationism

in the Classroom. In (Ed.) Robert W. Hanson. (1986). Science and

Creation: Geological, Theological, and Educational Perspectives. New

York: Macmillan Publishing Co.

National Academy of Sciences. (1998). Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of

Science. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.

Zook, Douglas. (1995). Confronting the Evolution Education Abyss. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching. 32, 1111-20.

Return to Top of the Page