america’s anti-evolution movement

T W O P E R S P E C T I V E S ON T E A C H I N G EVOLUTION

America's Anti-Evolution Movement

Randy Moore

I f today you can take a thing like evolution and make it a crime to teach it in the public schools, tomorrow

you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools . . . . A t the next session you may ban books

and the newspapers . . . . Ignorance and fanaticism are ever busy and need feeding. Always feeding and

gloating for more . . . . After a while, Your Honor, it is the setting of man against man and creed

against creed until with f laming banners and beating drums we are marching backward to

the glorious ages of the sixteenth century. --Clarence Darrow

E volution is the cornerstone of biology and one of the most powerful, ex- citing, and well-supported laws in mode rn science. Evolution transforms

biology from a collection of unrela ted observations and definitions into a co- heren t discipline that, among other things, helps us unders tand life's history and predict answers to impor tant research questions. Nevertheless, and de- spite its longstanding and overwhelming support by biologists, geologists, and o ther scientists, the teaching of evolution is again being a t tacked- -not by new discoveries, but by religious activists, politicians, and others intent on under- mining science education, academic f reedom, and free thought .

To many educated people, these attacks on evolution are a bewildering p h e n o m e n o n . In one of the most scientifically and technologically advanced countries in the world, how can so many people reject--even c o n d e m n - - a foundat ion of m o d e r n science? Why, when scientific literacy is increasingly impor tant for a full life and successful career, do so many people reject evolution in favor of superstition and religious dogma? Why do some states encour- ' age teachers to avoid evolution or p re tend that it does not exist?

Randy Moore is professor of biology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, and editor of The American Biology Teacher. This article and the response by Stephen Barr are adapted from an exchange on the teaching of evolution in elementary and secondary schools organized by NAS's Committee on K-12 Education at our confer- ence in January 2001. Please address correspondence to Academic Questions / NAS, 221 Witherspoon Street, Second Floor, Princeton, NJ 08542-3215; [email protected].

69

70 Academic Questions / Spring 2002

Attacks on the Teaching of Evolution

Attacks by creationists on the teaching of evolution have taken a variety of forms: 1

Court challenges. The most obvious attacks on evolution have occurred in cour t rooms (Table 1 ). Al though the Scopes trial remains the most famous of these court cases, there have been many others. Creationists have lost every case. These losses have p rompted creationists to extend most of their attacks to forums outside the legal system.

State standards for teaching evolution. State educational standards are sup- posed to be the foundat ion of what students learn. They are designed to produce the state's desired educational outcomes. However, 26 states have standards for teaching evolution that range from "weak" to "useless" and "disgraceful." Many states do not even include the word evolution in their standards for science education. In Louisiana, where large numbers of high school biology teachers endorse creationism, evolution is listed as a topic to avoid on the state's exit exam for high school students (other such topics include the occult, witchcraft, d rug use, and incest). Since evolution does not appear on the exam, and because resources (e.g., teachers' salaries) are often l inked to scores on the exams, many teachers do not teach about evolution. Similarly, Kentucky--which dele ted the word evolution from its science-education standards in 1999--groups evolution with such topics as gun control, topics that "may not be suitable for assess- men t items." If students or parents express concerns about evolution being taught at their school, students are given alternative assignments. Some schools in Kentucky have protected students from learning about evolution by gluing the offending pages of textbooks together. 2

Legislation. State legislators and policy makers have repeatedly in tervened to weaken the teaching of evolution and p romote the teaching of Biblical creationism in science classes of public schools. For example, in 1990 the Kentucky legislature reenacted a law passed in 1976 stipulating that teachers who cover evolution in class can also teach "creationism as presented in the Bible" and that "students who adhere to the Biblical account should get credit on exams." Al though this law defies court decisions such as McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education and Edwards v. AguiUard (Table 1 ), it has not been challenged. The teaching of creationism in science classes of public schools is unconsti tutional, but c o m m o n ?

Vilification. Many creationists and anti-evolution organizations (e.g., the Institute for Creation Research; ICR) spend much of their t ime and re-

Moore and Barr 71

sources vilifying evolution because of their inaccurate belief that evolution is inherently anti-religious. These and other creationists believe that if humans were not created specially according to a literal reading of the Bible, then society and religion crumble, the Scriptures lose their authority, and salvation disappears. These creationists view evolution as incompatible with their religious beliefs and blame the teaching of evolution for virtually all societal problems, including wars, prostitution, abortion, and murder. Like William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes trial (who claimed that "All the ills from which America suffers can be traced back to the teaching of evolution"), many creationists view the evolution-creationism controversy as a holy war. Famed creationist Henry Morris believes that Satan originated the concept of evolution, and Judge Braswell Deen of the Georgia State Court of Appeals claims that "The monkey mythology of Darwin is the cause of permissiveness, promiscuity, pills, prophylactics, perversions, abortion, pornotherapy, pollution, poisoning and prolifera- tion of crimes of all types." More recently, a state legislator in Louisiana introduced a bill blaming evolution for racism, and U.S. House of Repre- sentatives majority whip Tom DeLay linked the teaching of evolution with school violence. Although many creationists are quick to point out how some people have used evolution to justify societal problems such as eu- genics, they ignore the longstanding relationships of creationism with racism and other such societal ills. 4

Public relations and social activism. Many creationists use attacks on the teaching of evolution to publicize their commitment to God and further their religious and political agendas. These creationists want to convert science teachers into missionaries, and schools and federal agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and Smithsonian Institution into churches to promote their religious beliefs (i.e., the Biblical story of creation). Not surprisingly, many of the creationists who have instigated attacks on evolution have done so because of religious conviction; for example, when evangelist William Willoughby sued the NSF because of its support of pro-evolution textbooks, he claimed that he was acting "in the interest of 40 million evangelical Christians in the United States" ( Willoughby v. Stever, Table 1). Similarly, James Hoisted sponsored the Arkansas "equal time" legislation (later ruled unconstitutional by the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education decision) because of his religious convictions; according to Hoisted, the legislation was "of course" related to religion. 5

Politics. The Republican Party's platforms in several states endorse the teaching of creationism, as do most politicians. 6

Political correctness. Growing numbers of people consider evolution to be an oppressive political ideology; for example, many people believe that if


humans are animals, and if any aspects of h u m a n behavior are driven ge- netically by instinct and condit ioning, then our behaviors and potential are limited. This "biological determinism" is unacceptable because it is a threat to freedom. Rather than admit to limits on h u m a n behavior, these so-called "secular creationists"--like traditional creationists--declare that humans are fundamental ly different f rom other forms of life and should be i m m u n e to the basic laws of nature. 7

Disclaimers. In 1997, a U.S. District Court struck down an a t tempt by Loui- siana school officials to force teachers to read aloud a disclaimer favoring the Biblical version of creation (Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Educa- tion, Table 1 ). Today, Alabama requires that all state-approved biology textbooks include a disclaimer stating that evolution is a "theory, no t fact. ''8 These disclaimers, like many of the anti-evolution laws, single out evolution for attack; o ther facts of science that creationists consider inconse- quential to their religious beliefs (e.g., cell theory, laws of thermodynamics) are not questioned.

Demands to teach "evidence against evolution. "This approach, p romoted by the minority opinion of U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist in Edwards v. Aguillard, invents "evidence against evolution" as a means of attacking evolution and p romot ing creationism. How- ever, the approach has a fatal flaw--namely, that there is no credible scientific evidence against evolution. On the contrary, evolution is overwhelmingly suppor ted by innumerable studies from a variety of scientific disciplines, including molecular biology, biogeography, geology, the fossil record, comparat ive anatomy, and deve lopmenta l biology. A biology teacher's lawsuit demand ing to teach evidence against evolution was dis- missed, as was his appeal of that decision (Table 1) .9

Renaming creationism "intelligent design" and "creation science. "The "creation science" movement , which is based on the "flood geology" ideas of self- proclaimed geologist and preacher George McCready Price (1870-1963), was popularized by Henry Morris in the 1970s and has been p romoted by many creationists ever since. Creation science is p romoted by the two larg- est anti-evolution organizations: the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis, both of which have annual budgets of approximately $4 million. Creation scientists believe that the Bible is a science book. However, "creation science" was declared a useless scientific idea in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education. Similarly, the repackaging of creationism as "intelligent design" has been rejected by courts and phi losophers alike (Table 1). 1~

Demanding "equal time" and "balanced treatment" for creationism in science classes. This approach is based on the assumptions that (1) there is scientific and

Moore and Barr 73

educational meri t in creation science, and (2) creation science should be included in science classes of public schools. These tenets were struck down by McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education and Edwards v. AguiUard.

When reporters and writers tell the public about attacks on the teaching of evolution, they often encourage illiteracy by refusing to consider the merits of the arguments or the competence of people making claims. This results in most people not being able to distinguish experts from crackpots, and with meri t being replaced by arbitrary authority. Both sides of the controversy are presented as being equally meritorious, thereby transforming scientific truth into little more than an opinion poll. "Do you believe in evolution?"

Why should we be concerned about attacks on the teaching o f evolution?

Creationists have repeatedly tried to force the Biblical story of creation into science classes of public schools. However, unlike creationism, science does not invoke the supernatural or occult to explain nature; this is why science courses do not include topics such as astrology, witchcraft, demons, and so on. If creationism were merely bad science, one could possibly justify its inclusion in science classes, for the First A m e n d m e n t protects us against the establish- men t of religion, not bad science. However, "creation science"is not science. This was made explicit in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, in which Judge William Overton concluded that "creation science has no scientific meri t or educational value as science" and that "creation science is not science. "H

Unlike creationists, scientists begin with falsifiable hypotheses that can be tested with observations and experiments. Creationists, on the other hand, begin with dogmatic conclusions and then search for evidence that supports those conclusions. William Jenn ings Bryan exempl i f ied many creationists ' ant i -educat ion dogmat i sm in 1925 when he p roc la imed that "If the Bible and the microscope do no t agree, the microscope is wrong." More recent s ta tements aff i rming this dogmat i sm inc lude those by television evangelist Jerry Falwell ("I want you to have all the academic f r eedom you want, as long as you wind up saying the Bible accoun t [of creat ion] is t rue and all o thers are not"), anti-evolution organizations such as Answers in Genesis ("By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any f i e l d . . , can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record"), and Henry Morris of the ICR ("The final and conclusive evidence against evolution is the fact that the Bible denies it"). 12

Even if creationism had some scientific basis, a baffling question would remain: whose story of creat ion should be taught? Al though the Biblical version of creat ion is most popu la r in the Un i t ed States, there are scores of o the r stories of creation. On what g rounds would a par t icular story of cre- a t ion be included in a science course? Would students vote? Would parents vote?


Most science teachers nei ther want nor are qualified to teach all of the many stories of creation. This is why many theists oppose the teaching of creationism in public schools; as one preacher said when the Hawaii state school board recently rejected standards that would have required "multiple theo- ries of origin" ( including creationism) to be taught in public schools, "I don ' t want your teachers teaching my kids about religion. "13

In 1838, Charles Darwin noted that "Man in his arrogance thinks himself a great work worthy of the interposit ion of a deity." This arrogance is why so many people are so offended by evolution; they are convinced that they have been made specially and in the image of God, and that they do not share a c o m m o n ancestry with o ther animals. Nevertheless, and whether we like it or not, humans did evolve from other animals. TM

Science is not democratic; "truth" in science is not decided by votes. Self- serving votes and popularity polls claiming that humans did not evolve from other animals, that humans are miraculously i m m u n e to the laws of nature, and that humans were created specially and in the image of God, don ' t change the fact that, as Charles Darwin noted, we were "created from animals." Courts have ruled that the teaching of Biblical creationism (e.g., "creation science") in science classes of public schools violates the First Amendmen t ; this, too, is not subject to a vote. As Judge William Overton no ted in his McLean v. Arkan-

sas Board of Education decision, "The application and content of First Amend- m e n t principles are not de te rmined by public opinion polls or by a majority vote."15

Have creationists' attacks been successful?

Although creationists have lost every legal challenge to the teaching of evolution (Table 1), their attacks have been successful. For example,

Creationism remains overwhelmingly popular. A variety of polls have re- por ted that (1) most Americans reject the fact that humans developed from earlier species of animals, (2) 65-80 percent of Americans believe that "creationism should be taught along with evolution" in public schools, (3) large percentages (35-45 percent) of Americans favor teaching creationism instead of evolution, and (4) almost half of Americans believe that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. 'q6

Evolution is the cornerstone of m o d e r n biology. Nevertheless, many high school biology teachers question or discredit evolution, avoid teaching evolution, or endorse and teach creationism, a7

The NSF, a federal agency charged with p romot ing basic science, has often avoided public endorsements of evolution. For example, in 1989 the

Moore and Barr 75

NSF approved a grant for a project entitled "Advances in Evolution: Bio- logical and Geological Perspectives" by the Biological Sciences Curricu- lum Study (BSCS). The NSF asked Joe McInerney, BSCS's executive director, to remove the word "evolution" from the title of the program because certain members of Congress would be unhappy to see that NSF had funded an educational program on evolution. Similarly, scientific museums in the United States seldom include exhibits on human evolution and variation because most people reject the fact that humans evolved from other animals) s

The result of all this is sadly predictable: "Over a quar te r - -and perhaps as many as hal f - -of the nation's high school students get educations shaped by creation influence. ''~9

Table 1 Selected legal decisions involving the creationism-evolution controversy. 2~

1925 . . . State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes--The most famous event in the history of the evolution-creationism controversy. The case, which was started for publicity reasons, accomplished nothing legally, for Scopes' conviction was overturned and the law banning the teaching of evolution in Tennessee was upheld in 1927 by the Tennessee Supreme Court (John Tho- mas Scopes v. State of Tennessee). Another legal challenge to laws banning the teaching of evolution would not occur for more than 40 years.

1968 . . . Epperson v. Arkansas--The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that laws banning the teaching of evolution are unconstitutional because they are too vague to enforce, attempt to establish religion in public schools, and reflect religious dogma.

1972. . . Wright v. Houston Independent School District--The free expression of religion is not accompanied by a right to be shielded from scientific findings incompatible with one's beliefs. This was the first lawsuit to be initiated by a creationist.

1973. . . Willoughby v. Stever--The First Amendment does not allow states to demand that teaching be tailored to particular religious beliefs.

1975 . . . Daniel v. Waters Tennessee's law requiring "equal emphasis" for "the Genesis account in the Bible" is unconstitutional because it man- dates the instruction of a religious doctrine (the law's purpose was to establish "the Biblical version of the creation of man").


Table 1 (cont.)

1977 . . . Hendren v. Campbell--The anti-evolution textbook Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity can ' t be used in Indiana 's public schools because it advances a specific religious view and its use violates the separat ion of church and state.

1 9 7 8 . . . Crowley v. Smithsonian Institution--The Smithsonian Inst i tut ion can use tax money to p r o m o t e evolut ion as science; evolut ion-based exhibits do no t restrict the free exercise of religion.

1982 . . . McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education--Arkansas' "Balanced Trea tment for Creat ion Science and Evolution Science Act" is unconstitutional because it advances religion in public schools. J u d g e William Over ton also concludes that creat ion science "is no t science," has no scientific significance, and is religion masquerad ing as science. Over ton 's decision is instructive because it provides a legal analysis o f what science is and what it is not.

1987 . . . Edwards v. Agui l lard--The U.S. S u p r e m e Cour t rules tha t Louisiana's law manda t ing ba lanced t rea tment for creat ionism under- mines science educat ion and is unconst i tu t ional because it impermissi- bly endorses religion by advancing the religious bel ief that a supernatura l be ing created humankind .

1 9 9 0 . . . Webster v. New Lennox School District #122--A teacher does no t have a First A m e n d m e n t right to teach creation science in a public school.

1992 . . . Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District--A school district can require that a teacher no t teach creationism; teachers canno t teach their own curr icu lum that violates the state's educat ional guidelines.

1 9 9 7 . . . Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education--A school district canno t force teachers to read a loud a disclaimer favoring the Biblical version of creationism. Proposals for teaching "intelligent design" are equivalent to proposals for teaching "creation science."

2 0 0 0 . . . LeVake v. Independent School District #656--A teacher 's right to free speech (e.g., to present "evidence against evolution") does no t over- ride the right o f a school to set a curr iculum.

Moore and Barr 77

Not e s

1. There are many different types of creationists (e.g., Biblical literalists, creation scientists, theistic "evolutionists"). For a discussion of these creationists, see Eugenic C. Scott, "Creationism, Ideology, and Science," in The Flight From Science and Reason, ed. Paul B. Gross, Norman Levitt, and Martin W. Lewis (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996): 505-522.

2. US. Lerner, Good Science, Bad Science: Teaching Evolution in the States (Washington, DC: The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, 2000); Randy Moore, "The Courage and Convictions of Don Aguillard," The Amer~an Biology Teacher 61 (1999) : 166-174; L. Scanlon and G.L. Uy, "The Evolution Debate: Private and Church Schools' Approaches Vary Widely," Louisville (KY) Courier Journal, 3 October 1999, A10; E.H. Berman, "Fundamentalists, the Schools, and Cultural Politics," Educational Foundations (Fall 1997): 1-12.

3. I. Harp, "The Evolution Debate: Even Today, the 'E-Word' Divides," Louisville (KY) Courier Journal, 3 October 1999, A1, A10; Randy Moore, In the Light of Evolution: Science Education on Trial (Reston, VA: National Association of Biology Teachers, 2000); Randy Moore, Evolution in the Courtroom: A Reference Guide, (Denver, CO: ABC-CLIO Publishers, 2O02).

4. K.M Pierce, "Putting Darwin Back in the Dock," Time (16 March 1981): 80-82; "Mr. DeLay's Power Play," New York Times Week in Review, 20 June 1999, 14; Randy Moore, "Racism, Creationism, and the Confederate Flag," Negro Educational Review 52 (January- April 2001): 19-28.

5. John Brummett, "'Creation-Science' Bill Promoted by Religious Beliefs, Sponsor Says," Arkansas Gazette, 22 March 1981, AI; Randy Moore, In the Light of Evolution: Science Education on Trial (Reston, VA: National Association of Biology Teachers, 2000).

6. ER.A. Patterson and I.E Rossow, "Chained to the Devil's Throne: Evolution and Creation Science as a Religio-Political Issue," American Biology Teacher 61 (1999): 358-364.

7. M. Carthmill, "Oppressed by Evolution," Discover (March 1998): 78-83; B. Ehrenreich andJ. McIntosh, "Sizing up 'secular creationism,'" Free Inquiry (Spring, 1998): 23-25.

8. M.R.C. Greenwood and K.K. North, "Science Through the Looking Glass: Winning the Battles but Losing the War?" Science 286 (1999): 2071-2079.

9. Randy Moore, Evolution in the Courtroom: A Reference Guide (Denver, CO: ABC-CLIO Publishers, 2002).



12. Randy Moore, In the Light of Evolution: Science Education on Trial (Reston, VA: National Association of Biology Teachers, 2000); Randy Moore, Evolution in the Courtroom: A Reference Guide (Denver, CO: ABC-CLIO Publishers, 2002).

13. "Perspectives," Newsweek, 13 August 2001, 15. 14. James Rachels, Created From Animals (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990) : 1. 15. The law banning the teaching of evolution in Arkansas was passed overwhelmingly in

1928 in a public referendum; the law, which was later overturned by Epperson v. Arkansas, remains the only such law ever to be approved by popular vote.

16. G.H. Gallup, Jr. and E Newport, "Belief in paranormal phenomena among adult Americans," Skeptical Inquirer 2 (1991): 137-147; M.R.C. Greenwood and K.K. North, "Science Through the Looking Glass: Winning the Battles but Losing the War?" Science 286 (1999): 2071-2079; Randy Moore, In the Light of Evolution: Science Education on Trial (Reston, VA: National Association of Biology Teachers, 2000) ; National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators, (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1996); Michael Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time (New York: Freeman, 1997).

17. K.J. Aldrich, "Teachers' Attitudes Toward Evolution and Creationism in Kansas Biology Classrooms, 1991," Kansas Biology Teacher8 (1999): 20-21; W.S. Carlesen, "Effects of New


18.

19.

20.

Biology Teachers' Subject-Matter Knowledge on Curricular Planning," Science Education 75 (1991): 631-647;J. Christensen, "Teachers Fight for Darwin's Place in U.S. Classrooms," New York Times, 24 November 1998, F3;Jeffrey Weld and Jill C. McNew, "Attitudes Toward Evolution," Science Teacher 66 (1999): 27-31; Randy Moore, "The Revival of Creationism in the United States," Journal of Biological Education 35 (2000): 17-21. M. Pigliucci, "Summer for the Gods," BioScience 48 (1998): 406-407;J. Marks, "How Can We Interject Human Evolution into More Museums?" Chronicle of Higher Education, 4 December 1998, B9; Joseph D. McInerney, Personal Communication, (21 May 2001). BSCS and its publisher, Videodiscovery, responded to NSF's request by making "evolution" the most prominent word on the cover of the three books and videodisc that resulted from the grant. R. Eve and E Harrold, The Creationist Movement in Modern America, (Boston: Twayne, 1991). For discussions of these and other evolution-related court cases, see Randy Moore, Evolution in the Courtroom: A Reference Guide (Denver, CO: ABC-CLIO Publishers, 2002). Although these cases are the major legal decisions in the evolution-creationism controversy, there have been several others involving classroom proselytizing that have included creationism. For example, University of Alabama biologist Philip Bishop was accused of using "intelligent design" as he witnessed to students in a optional class- meeting. When told by administrators to stop, Bishop sued on free speech and academic- freedom grounds. Bishop won the initial challenge, but lost the appeal. See Bishop v. Aranov, 1991 926 E 2d 1066; 1991 App. Lexis 4118.

The National Association of Scholars mourns the passing of Ernest van den Haag

1914 to 2002 An ally and founding member of our Board

of Advisors

america’s anti-evolution movement

Documents