Fish growing legs and crawling
out of the primordial ocean onto land, evolving into the first
amphibians; Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. For many people,
both of these descriptions are powerful images that they have been
exposed to at some point in their lives, and have chosen to accept to
one degree or another. Do these ideas represent the two very
different lines of thought of science and religion, or are they both a
matter of faith? Are they both based in science?
Whichever view or views a person accepts, it is
likely he or she learned this belief when he or she was young,
either through home, school or church. Since the mid twentieth
century it has been the position of the Federal Government in this
country to promote the teaching of the Theory of Evolution as science
and to leave religious instruction, including Creationism, to the home
or church. Now, some groups are calling for a change in this
policy. It is argued that Intelligent Design Theory, as it is
called, is as scientific as the Theory of Evolution and that it should
be taught side by side with in public classrooms.
Others contend that Intelligent Design is purely
religious and should be left out of publicly funded schools as a matter
of the principle of the Separation of Church and State. This
paper presents the best arguments and evidences from both sides.
Arguments will be taken from books dealing with both sides of the
issue, periodicals in which sentiments have been expressed and
arguments given for both sides as well as persuasive essays and
debates. Evidence cited will be legal as well as scientific, as
this is ultimately a Constitutional issue, but the Theory of Evolution
will have to be explained in some detail. First a brief history
of the progression of theories of origins, then a description of the
Theory of Evolution and Intelligent Design. The paper will then
examine a disclaimer concerning evolution in Oklahoma textbooks and
point out flaws in one of ID theory's main arguments, that of
irreducible complexity. Finally, the paper will outline a few of
the major court cases dealing with the teaching of Evolution to make
clear the constitutional position on the issue.
Before discussing further the controversies
concerning the teaching of Evolution it is important to go over the
history of both evolutionary thought and counter evolutionary
thinking. For thousands of years, much of the Western world held
that God had created the Earth and all the life on it in their present
forms and that these life forms were unchanging. However, about
400 years ago naturalists studying fossils discovered something that
would spark a fundamental change the way we view life on this
planet. The naturalists noticed that fossils found in younger
rock layers resembled forms of modern animals, but older layers of rock
contained fossils unlike anything alive. If all life were created
in their preset forms, as people believed, older fossils and younger
fossils would look alike, but they don't. (National Center for Science
Education "Evolution of Creationism.")
Many naturalists attempted to explain their
observations in a way that did not require a rethinking of the
traditional version of Creation. But one overpowering piece of
evidence could not be ignored, evidence that clearly showed that
species have gone and were going extinct. Although this evidence
was unsettling, it was undeniable. In its place a new,
progressive, version of Creation was formulated in which forms of life
went extinct and more modern forms came into existence as a result of
subsequent creation episodes.
As people found more and more fossils around the
world, another pattern emerged. Not only were older fossils
different from newer fossils, but older fossils found in one geographic
location were similar to newer fossils found there, as well as to
living animals of the region. Why would, if newer forms were the
result of more recent creations, newer forms always resemble the forms
that had gone extinct before them in the same geographic region?
For example, all living kangaroos and kangaroo-like fossils are found
in Australia, even though kangaroos could survive in many other places
with the same climatic conditions. Geographic distribution like
this is found everywhere; living animals are found in the same area as
the fossils that look similar to them are found. This evidence
contradicted the traditional belief that all forms were created in one
place, The Garden of Eden. The new theory of creation was that,
in addition to multiple creations over time, there were multiple
locations of creation where different forms were created to live in
certain areas according to God's plan for that region.
This new version of creation was compatible with the
fossil record but it raised some troublesome questions. Why would
a Creator allow certain forms of life to go extinct only to create new
slightly different than the forms already created? And why would
a Creator place those forms in the same regions and the forms that went
before, even though they could easily exist elsewhere? Could
these small, geographically isolated changes be the result of natural
and not supernatural causes?
In the 1800s, Jean Baptiste de Lamark proposed a
natural mechanism for these changes in living forms. His theory
was called transformation, he hypothesized that an organism would adapt
to its environment and pass those adaptations on to its
offspring. For example, a giraffe-like animal with a shorter neck
stretches its neck out farther to reach food more easily, when it
reproduces its offspring will have a slightly longer neck. Those
offspring will stretch their necks and pass on that adaptation, until
the modern long-necked giraffe is born. This theory was not well
formulated, unsupported and contradicted by many
observations. Although revolutionary, Lamarck's transformation
did not hold up to scientific scrutiny. (Campbell, "Biology.")
In the 1840s Alfred Wallace and Charles Darwin
proposed a new theory in which natural causes were responsible for
these changes in species and the mechanism for these changes, natural
selection were logical and observable in nature. The theory of
Narutal Selection was published within Origin of the Species in 1841,
but it would be many years before the the work of the Austrian monk
Gregor Mendel gave new insight into how these changes are passed down,
through genetic inheritance and the modern Theory of Evolution was
born. (Patterson, "Evolution.")
Now that there is a scientifically supported theory
contrary to Biblical Creation that requires nothing but natural laws of
the physical universe to explain the origin of the diverse life on
earth, many Western religious leaders feel threatened. The
rational for this anxiety is that if one can show that the rise of Man
did not require God, then we are not His Creation and He does not
deserve our worship and respect. Many people fear that without
the belief in Biblical creation there can be no moral foundation on
which our society can rest and, more importantly, there can be no
Salvation. The focus of this fear is on Evolution, because it is
seen as a threat to the underlying faith of Western religion and
society as a whole. This fear is unwarranted. Very soon
after the publishing of The Origin of Species, the Church of England
accepted Evolution and found that it did not contradict with a faith
in, and respect for, God. The Catholic Church and most Protestant
denominations have also found that faith and evolution can
coexist. Many scientists who are devout Christians have no
problem accepting the Theory of Evolution while maintaining a strong
belief in God.
In the early 1900s, the rise of Fundamentalism in
America brought a new attack on Evolution. The belief of many
Christian Fundamentalists is that the Bible is accurate when
interpreted literally and stands as an accurate record of historically
factual events, including the creation of the Earth and all life on
it. The beliefs of Fundamentalists directly contradicts the
Theory of Evolution and for them, the teaching of Evolution in schools
is a threat to the moral fabric of the nation and must be
stopped. The famous Scopes "Monkey" Trial of 1925 made public
this heated debate among educators and concerned Fundamentalists.
This attack on evolution subsided during the Cold
War, when it was perceived that the Soviet Union had superior
scientific knowledge and technology to the United States's, and the
desire to educate better our children in science brought Evolution back
into science classrooms. But the fervor of the Cold War died and
with it brought the rise of a new opposition to Evolution. In
order to appeal to the legislators who decide what is to be included in
school curricula, the Anti-Evolution movement was replaced by
Scientific Creationism and more recently, the Intelligent Design
Movement. Both are geared with the same goal of challenging the
validity of Evolution and replacing it with Christian mythology.
As a result of the efforts of Creation Science
organizations over the past decades, most people in America today lack
a fundamental understanding of Evolution. While this isn't a very
good situation, demonstrating a lack of scientific education in our
society, it is particularly disturbing when one realizes that many of
the people without sufficient understanding of Evolution are the people
responsible for mandating science education in this country.
Before discussing the importance
of a solid understanding of Evolution, it is necessary to clarify
for the reader the main points of Evolutionary theory. Unlike the
caricature of a fish growing legs, evolution does not act on
individuals, but rather on populations of individuals. Mutations
in the genes of individuals occur during reproduction. Most of
the time the mutated organism is at a disadvantage and thus it is less
likely to survive to reproduce and pass that mutation on to their
descendants. Sometimes, however, the mutation is beneficial to an
individual and natural selection works to increase the chances that it
will be able to pass on its genetic information on to its
descendants. The descendants are susceptible to the same random
mutations and natural selective pressures (such as predation and
climate) as their parents and will pass on beneficial mutations to
their young, etc. (Campbell, "Biology.")
There are two types of evolution; microevolution and
macroevolution. Microevolution refers to the change within a
species that causes variation and sub-species (also known as
races). The many different varieties of domesticated dogs is an
example of microevolution within a species due to artificial
selection. In the same way that dog breeders the select dogs with
certain desirable characteristics to mate and create new breeds of
dogs, nature selects animals with advantageous traits to be more likely
to reproduce thus creating sub-species. Macroevolution is the
evolution of a new species due to changes in the genome of isolated
populations caused by specific selective pressures over time. For
example, one species of ground squirrel existed in Northeastern Arizona
until the Colorado River carved a path in the desert and created the
Grand Canyon. The species was then cut into two reproductively
isolated populations. Over many generations, mutations occurred
in both populations, but mutations occurring in one population could
not be transfered via interbreeding with the other population due to
their geographic isolation. Eventually there were enough genetic
differences between the two populations that they could no longer
produce fertile offspring if interbred. Each new species will
continue to evolve and since they are reproductively isolated the
gene pools of their populations will contain different mutations and
different selective pressures will act on them. As time goes on,
the species will continue to become less and less similar. This
is just one example of how macroevolution can make one species diverge
into two and so on. Macroevolution accounts for the tremendous
diversity and adaptation found in life on Earth. (Patterson,
"Evolution.")
Contrary to the Evolutionary Theory is the theory of
Intelligent Design (ID). The Discovery Institute, a leading
promoter of ID theory states that "The theory of intelligent design
holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are
best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such
as natural selection." ("What is Intelligent Design?" Discovery
Institute) Unlike Creationism which specifically identifies the
intelligent designer as the Biblical God and upholds a literal
interpretation of the Book of Genesis, ID merely states that
intelligent design is evident in nature and should be considered an
essential component in the development of life on Earth.
While evolution is well
accepted within the scientific community, ID theory is still gaining
strength. In recent years many initiatives by proponents of ID
theory have attempted to pass legislation that would require public
schools to give "equal time" to ID theory and Evolution, to allow
students to decide for themselves which explanation of origins is most
correct and useful.
One of the main controversies on this issue revolves around biology
textbooks. Some public school textbooks, such as those used in the
State of Oklahoma, are required by law to have a disclaimer regarding
evolution. Here is an excerpt for example:
The first problem
with this disclaimer is that it gives the impression that the Theory of
Evolution is somehow controversial among scientists. This is
absolutely not the case. Certainly there is some debate among
scientists as to the specific details of how evolution takes place, but
the fact that evolution occurs and that natural selection is the
driving force behind it is far from controversial within the scientific
community.
Despite the strong support for Evolution, a
popular campaign amongst opponents of Evolution is to compile lists of
scientists, past and present, who doubt that Evolution is the best
explanation of the origins and complexity of life. For example,
the Discovery Institute published the names of 100 scientists
from around the world who doubt evolution. In a humorous, but
impressive, way the National Center for Science Education published its
own list; of scientists who support evolution and who are also named
Steve or a cognate thereof, in honor of the late Stephen Jay
Gould. The list, dubbed "Project Steve," has over 400 signatories
and growing. The aim of the project is to demonstrate that,
although there are some scientists who have problems with evolution,
the vast majority of the scientific community shows resounding support
of evolution. To say that evolution is an explanation that "some
scientists present" ("Oklahoma Evolution Disclaimer") is deliberately
misleading and detrimental to the scientific education of the students
who are reading the books.
Secondly, the disclaimer states that "... any
statement about life's origins should be considered as theory,
not fact." Theory of Evolution is a theory, but the scientific
definition of "theory" is an explanation that is used to explain
observations and make predictions of future discoveries. Unlike
the common definition of "theory," scientific theories are well-tested
and supported by much corroborating evidence and many facts. To
say a theory is not a fact is true if by that statement one means that
it is not a fact but rather an effective explanation, built upon a
collection of factual evidence, of the natural world. Teaching
children that Evolution is "a theory and not a fact" not only confuses
the student about the standing of Evolution as an reliable method to
explain natural phenomena across multiple disciplines, but it also
creates confusion as to the scientific definition of a theory.
Lastly, this disclaimer asserts that,
"Evolution also refers to the unproven belief that random,
undirected forces produced a world of living things." This
statement not only shows a lack of understanding of the basic
principles of Evolution, but also reveals the biases of the
author. The use of the word "unproven" is very misleading.
Scientific theories are not "proven" or supported by "proof." In
mathematics, statements can be proven true using the concept of logical
induction. Scientific theories, however, are supported by
evidence. The Theory of Evolution is supported by a great volume
of evidence across many fields, including biology and geology.
The validity of evolution is not in that is has been proven to be true
but in the extensive evidence supporting it. Evidence for
evolution accumulates every time an observation can be fully explained
by the Theory of Evolution or when a prediction made using the concept
of evolution is found in nature. Modifications to the theory are
made when an observation cannot be explained by the present
theory. A theory can never be "proven" because it is always open
for change. To say that a theory is "unproven" does not change
the fact that it is a working explanation for natural phenomena that
allows scientists to make predictions and use scientific knowledge
effectively.
Asserting that the Theory of Evolution is a "belief"
is also misleading and detrimental. Evolution is accepted because
there is ample evidence to support it and predictions made using the
theory have been observed. In short, if one accepts evolution one
can use it to make useful predictions and enlightening explanations of
the natural world which is the goal of science. Perhaps an
observation will be made that cannot be conceivably explained via
evolution, and evidence for a more complete theory will be found.
Since Evolution is not a belief, it can be modified to include the new
evidence. However organizations supporting 'Creation Science,'
such as The Creation Research Society require members and "researchers"
to sign a Statement of Belief that asserts that the Bible and the Book
of Genesis are the Word of God and factual in their representation of
historical events. ("CRS Statement of Belief," Creation Research
Society) Consequently, since someone having a belief in Biblical
creation cannot alter the story in Genesis when presented with evidence
that contradicts it, it is a belief. However, scientists who
accept the theory of evolution can alter the theory to allow it to
explain more throughly the workings of Nature. Creationists
search for evidence to prove their belief, while scientists create
theories to explain natural observations. It is in this way that
theories are more valuable than facts or beliefs.
It is misleading to state that "... random,
undirected forces produced a world of living things" ("Oklahoma
Evolution Disclaimer"). This phrase of the disclaimer ignores the
working mechanism of Evolution, the "direction," of natural
selection. Mutations randomly create variations in the phenotypes
expressed in populations but natural selection causes those individuals
with advantageous characteristics to have a higher likelihood of
surviving and passing on that beneficial mutation to their offspring
thereby guiding their evolution. Natural selection is controlled
solely by natural and physical laws, it is neither of intelligence nor
mere chance. To state that evolution is random and undirected is
deceptive and it is not scientific.
Disclaimers like those in Oklahoma should not be
allowed into science textbooks because they are not scientific and
present an image of Evolutionary theory that is inconsistent with the
vast majority of scientists and contradictory to the laws of
Nature. Teaching students that evolution is a belief is to teach
that is is not science. This disclaimer was written to
intentionally misrepresent the theory of evolution to make it appear
unscientific when it is the unalterable beliefs of Creationists that
are inconsistent with the natural world and common sense.
Arguments from Intelligent
Design attempt to demonstrate the necessity of a Designer of the life
on this planet. One argument is that of Irreducible
complexity. The idea of Irreducible Complexity originates from
Michael Behe's 1996 book Darwin's Black Box: The biochemical Challenge
to Evolution. In it he gives the definition of an irreducibly
complex system as one that cannot have evolved since it contains many
different parts that are all essential to its function. There
cannot have been an ancestor of an irreducibly complex system because
if it was missing just one part, it would not be able to
function. For an example of an irreducibly complex system, Behe
discusses a mousetrap. If the mousetrap were missing just one of
its many parts, it would not be able to function. ("Irreducible
Complexity Demystified," Talkdesign.org)
The mousetrap argument is flawed because it works
under the assumption that the mousetrap is useless unless it can
function as a mousetrap. If in nature life is designed then yes,
it would be useless if it did not function as the designer
intends. However, life is functional if it survives, and during
the evolutionary heritage of a life-form it may go through many
different survival strategies. Evolution is not linear, it does
not follow a pre-determined course and it is not, as the argument of
irreducible complexity makes it seem. simply adding one part onto
another. The parts are constantly changing their form and their
function. For example, if one removed a part of a mousetrap, it
would be difficult to use it to trap mice. However, there are
many other uses that one could find for a device made from only some of
the parts of a mousetrap. In nature there are many species that
would fit the description of and irreducibly complex system and yet an
evolutionary line can logically be made connecting them with ancestors
who are missing some features and yet function perfectly well as
evidenced by their continued survival.
To continue with the same theme when drawing on
natural systems, one can look at the example of the Venus Flytrap
(Dionaea muscipula). The flytrap works by having a tooth-lined
pair of leaves that are connected in the center by a hinge. When
an insect brushes against small hairs inside the trap, it quickly snaps
closed, trapping the insect inside. After a few days the bug is
fully digested by the plant and the trap re-opens. If any of the
features of the plant were removed, it would not be able to capture and
digest the insects and would suffer from a lack of the nitrogen that it
obtains from them. A venus flytrap fits Behe's definition of an
irreducibly complex system. However, it can be shown how D.
muscipula may have developed from another carnivorous plant, the Sundew
(Drosera). Sundews capture their prey not by fast reflexes but by
a sticky fluid covering tentacles that slowly over the course of a few
hours curl inward to ensnare the insect. In modern Sundews the
tentacles are connected to a semicircular base that depresses in the
center as the tentacles curl inwards. Although Venus Flytraps
left no fossil evidence, a logical sequence of evolution can be
constructed between Drosera and Dionaea. As the amount of fluid
covering the tentacles decreased, (due to changes in climate or
location), the movement of the tentacles became more rapid. The
tentacles became shorter, turning into the teeth, the semicircular pad
became more hinged to allow for faster closing and the viscus fluid all
but vanished. ("Irreducible Complexity Demystified.")
These changes could have happened slowly with
intermediate steps, whereupon they were building off of one another, at
no point in the processes would there be a plant that could not
function. So here we see an example of the possible evolution of
an irreducibly complex system and there are many more examples in
nature where it can be shown that the definition of "irreducibly
complex" does not mean that it could not have easily evolved given
enough time and selective pressures.
While there are many claimed 'evidences' [sic] for
Intelligent Design, they are all unsupported by modern science and most
of the curricula proposed as a result of the ID movement are geared not
towards any evidence for a designer, but rather attacking the evidence
for evolution with unfounded, well-refuted "evidence" that the
fundamental assumptions of evolution are false. Because ID theory
contains no science, it should be restricted to philosophy and theology
courses.
Another
argument made by Intelligent Design Theorists is that since nobody was
around to witness either the evolution or the creation of life, both
explanations of origins are merely hypotheses which should be taught as
equal in their merit. Unfortunately, there are major problems
with this argument. The Theory of Evolution is not simply the
fact that populations change over time but it is a theory that allows
the dynamics of population change to be understood and predicted.
The value of evolutionary theory is not simply in its scientific truth
but in the invaluable nature of knowledge and foresight gained from its
predictions.
One of the most important explanations evolution
offers is that of diseases. Because they reproduce very quickly,
viruses and bacteria undergo very rapid evolution. This evolution
is what causes strains of bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics,
and why vaccinations need to be continuously updated. The most
evident use of evolutionary theory in medicine is in combating the
Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) which causes AIDS. HIV has the
tendency to evolve extremely quickly which is why it so difficult to
treat and as of yet impossible to cure. If a person takes a drug
to kill the virus, it is likely that some of the viruses survive
because they have some resistance to the drug. By exerting the
selective pressure of the drug on the population of viruses, it causes
the evolution of the virus population such that all viruses living
within the person are decedent from the few that survived and thus all
are resistant. Without knowledge of the mechanisms of Evolution
one might see the results (the patient recovering temporarily only to
fall ill again shortly afterward) as a sign that the dose was not high
enough. If one acted on this assumption and gave the patient a
higher dose it may kill off some the viruses again, but as before,
those with more resistance would survive and pass their stronger
resistance on to the next generation which only makes them harder to
kill. However, if one applies the concepts of evolutionary theory
one will get much better results. By treating the patients with a
mix of drugs (a drug 'cocktail') there is less of a chance that some of
the viruses will be resistance to all the drugs. While eventually
viruses resistant to all the drugs will evolve (there just aren't
enough possible drugs to take) it is a much slower process than with
treating with higher dosages. By applying Evolution the patient
can be healthy for much longer. ("Understanding Evolution," Univ. of
Ca. Museum of Paleontology.)
Additionally, patients being treated for AIDS will
take one drug or a cocktail for awhile and then stop taking it, and
then begin taking it again. This is another application of
Evolution. There are "trade-offs" when a virus mutates so that it
is resistant to a particular drug. The mutation enables it to
survive better than non-mutated viruses while in the presence of the
drug but when the patient stops taking the drug the non-resistant
varieties have a better chance in competition with the mutated
forms. Because of this trade-off, the population of viruses
within the patient evolves to be resistant to a drug while he or she is
taking it, but when treatment stops the population evolves back to
being mostly non-resistant. Thus, if there are gaps between
treatments the same drug can be used effectively over and over again
which extends the amount of time that the patient can remain
healthy. By applying evolution to HIV, doctors can more
successfully treat patients. Without a thorough understanding of
the principles by which populations change over time due to selective
pressures, no treatment of AIDS would be possible. ("Understanding
Evolution")
There are many applications of evolution beyond
medicine as well. Scientists have used the Theory of Evolution to
make predictions and warnings for agriculture. Agricultural
disasters have wiped out entire crops which wreakes havoc on entire
countries by killing thousands and severely disrupting the global
economy. In nature, genetic differences within a species enable
the population to adapt to possible pressures, for example some members
of a species may have a mutation that makes them resistant to a certain
disease. If that disease infects the population those that have
resistance to it will survive. Without genetic variation a
population becomes extremely susceptible to environmental
changes. An example of this susceptibility was illustrated in the
1840s in Ireland. To solve the problem of feeding an increasing
population, only one type of potato was grown. Since potatoes can
be grown without sexual reproduction, all the potatoes being grown were
genetically identical to one another. Growing only one type of
potato makes food production much more efficient and cost effective,
enabling the Irish to grow enough food. Unfortunately, by
eliminating genetic variation, the crops were also highly susceptible
to disease and when blight struck the potatoes, the entire crop was
lost, devastating the people who depended upon them. ("Relevance of
Evolution," Univ. Ca. Berkeley.)
Since then we have learned that genetic variation
within a population is critical for the adaptation to changing
environmental conditions that enable a population to survive events
such as disease and climate change. However we have ignored the
theory of evolution, and in 1970 over a billion dollars worth of US
corn was lost when it was overcome with fungus because only a single
variety was planted. If we apply the Theory of Evolution to
agriculture we could save money and lives. The stability of our
food and our economy depends upon a widespread understanding of
evolutionary principles.
Surely it can be argued that both Intelligent Design
Theory and the Theory of Evolution are adequate explanations for the
diversity of life on Earth. However, the value of a theory is not
merely that is an explanation, but that it provides people with the
ability to make accurate predictions of future events and the
consequences of certain actions. If one held that life was
intelligently designed and that mutations with natural selection did
not cause adaptation, one would have an explanation with no predictive
value. If, for example, you were vaccinated against influenza
(the Flu virus) and a year later you contracted the flu, which theory
would more adequately explain your illness? One could say that an
Intelligent Designer made you and made the viruses in the form they are
now and have always had this form and are unchanging. This would
mean that the vaccination was in fact useless to defend against the
virus and any further vaccinations would be a waste of time, no one
would get vaccinated and many would contract influenza and die.
However, if one assumes that populations (such as those of influenza)
are continuously changing due to mutations and adapting to selective
pressures (such as vaccines) due to natural selection, one would
realize that a new, updated, vaccine is needed to combat the adapted
strain. People would not contract the virus and many lives would
be saved.
For many thousands of years people believed (and
some still do) that diseases are the work of evil spirits or negative
energies. While one could argue that these explanations are
adequate because they explain the cause of disease, they are not
adequate to actually prevent or cure any diseases. Similarly one
could argue that Intelligent Design offers an "adequate" explanation
for the origin or life, but it falls short of evolution when providing
practical knowledge in medical science, agriculture and species
conservation. In this way Evolution is superior to Intelligent
Design because instead of merely offering an untestable explanation it
enables us to make predictions and solve real-world problems. If
Intelligent Design is taught as having equal value as Evolution grave
consequences could result. Science is not merely a book of
explanations for the world in which we live. Scientific theories
like Evolution aim to provide us with a way of understanding the
intimacies of the natural world, our place in the web of life and what
we can do to make life happier, healthier and more productive.
Aside from scientific issues,
the teaching of Intelligent Design unavoidably brings up philosophical
and religious questions as well. If we are to assume that there
is an Intelligent Designer, then obvious questions arise as to the
identity of the designer and their purpose in his design of all life,
including humans. While the ID movement officially takes no
stance on who or what the Intelligent Designer is, proponents of ID
theory are almost all fundamentalist Christians and most of the
legislation to prohibit the teaching of evolution or require the
additional teaching of ID concepts has been passed in the South, which
is predominately Christian. By teaching that science necessitates
a belief in an intelligent designer or Creator, children will
undoubtedly be brought to a belief in the God of their society, which
in most if not all cases where ID is being taught means the Christian
God.
Regardless of whether a specific religion is
endorsed, the Supreme Court has declared that any governmentally or
publicly funded action endorsing a belief in a Designer or Creator is
in violation of the principle of the Separation of Church and State and
the establishment clause of the Fist Amendment. Since the
historic Scopes "Monkey" Trial of 1925, there have been numerous
occasions in which individuals and organizations have filed cases
stating that either a law requiring the teaching of Evolution should be
reversed, or that laws requiring the teaching of Creation side by side
with evolution are unconstitutional. Some of these cases have
made it as far as the Supreme Court and the overwhelming consensus of
the court is to uphold that the teaching of Evolution is vital and that
teaching of other theories of origins in public schools is
unconstitutional.
One of these court cases was Epperson v. Arkansas in
which the US Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional for
Arkansas to prohibit the teaching of Evolution because it meant that
the curriculum was being tailored to the views of a particular
religious sect and thus a violation of the First Amendment.
("Seven Significant Court Decisions Regarding Evolution." National
Center for Science Education.) Again in 1982, an Arkansas statute
requiring "balanced treatment" of Creation and Evolution in science
classrooms was deemed unconstitutional on the grounds that "Creation
Science" is not science and that the authors of the statute did not
have a secular purpose. ("Seven...Evolution." NCSE.) Once
more the Supreme Court held that "Creation Science" is not science when
it ruled in 1987 that Louisiana's "Creationism Act" was
unconstitutional by requiring that whenever evolution was taught,
"Creation Science" be taught as well. ("Seven..." NCSE.) Furthermore,
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Peloza v. Capistrano School
District that it was not a violation of a teacher's First Amendment
right to Freedom of Religion to require a teacher to teach the Theory
of Evolution, stating that Evolution is not religiously founded and
that the district had simply required the teaching of a scientific
theory within a science classroom. ("Seven...") In every case
that the issue of Evolution in schools has been brought before the high
courts of this country, the ruling has been that to not teach evolution
is detrimental to the education of the student, and to teach other
theories of origins in a scientific setting is unconstitutional.
Even with the support of the Supreme Court science
teachers in this country are regularly confronted about teaching
Evolution. Some are supported by their administrators, even
forced to teach it, while others are asked to leave it out of the
curriculum. In either case, teachers need to stand firm and not
give in to the pressures of parents who fear that the teaching of
evolution is corrupting their children's religious beliefs.
Evolution is the central, unifying theory of biology
and to not teach it is to leave out one of the most important aspects
of modern science. A science teacher choosing not to teach
evolution based on the request of a parent is tantamount to a history
teacher omitting a unit on the Holocaust because a parent is a
Holocaust revisionist. Students who do not know about evolution
will be at a disadvantage on standardized tests and in college.
At the university level, evolution is not controversial and students
are expected to know its concepts.
The argument that religiously founded creation
stories should be taught alongside evolutionary theory in science
classrooms is invalid. Creation science is not science. Not
only would teachers be teaching things that are not scientifically
supported, they would be giving credit to researchers who ignore
evidence and do not practice the scientific method.
Parents should not fear evolution. Evolution
does not contradict a belief in God, and a religious belief and an
understanding of Evolution can be easily reconciled. Parents can
instruct their children in religious theories of origins, but those
theories are not science and should not be confused as such by teaching
them in a science classroom.