Evolution and Creationism in America's Classrooms: A National Portrait

Essay I n 2004, the school board in Dover, Pennsylvania, voted to require its 9th grade science teachers to read a statement questioning the validity of evolutionary theory. " Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, " teachers were instructed to say, " it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. " Students in Dover High School were also encouraged to explore the concept of intelligent design (ID), described in the statement as " an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. " Multiple copies of the ID text Of Pandas and People were made available, and the school board stated that " Students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families " [1]. By promoting ID and questioning evolution, Dover's elected school board aligned itself with national public opinion, which consistently shows a majority favors teaching Biblical creationism in addition to evolution [2]. Moreover, a 2005 poll conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reports that 38% of Americans would prefer that creationism was taught instead of evolution [3]. But the Dover public school teachers, citing ethical obligations, were unmoved by public pressure and refused to comply with their board's directive. The high school's science teachers issued a statement arguing: " …if I as the classroom teacher read the required statement, my students will inevitably (and understandably) believe that Intelligent Design is a valid scientifi c theory, perhaps on par with the theory of evolution. That is not true. To refer the students to 'Of Pandas and People' as if it is a scientifi c resource breaches my ethical obligation to provide them with scientifi c knowledge that is supported by recognized scientifi c proof or theory " [1]. To scientists, the teachers' position is noncontroversial. Alternative approaches to evolution like ID are a " hoax " at best and " faith " at worst [4,5]; in neither case do they have any place in a science curriculum. The National Academy of Sciences calls evolution " the central concept of biology " [6], and three respected national organizations have provided model high school curriculum guidelines with evolution as a unifying theme [7–9]. Unlike John Scopes (see Figure 1), the …