On the Legal Issues of Teaching Evolution in Public Schools

Abstract

In order to effectively teach evolution to all students, even those resistant to learning evolution, science teachers may question the extent to which religion can legally be discussed in the public high school science classroom. Evolution is taught from a variety of approaches, each of which has legal implications. Four approaches to teaching socioscientific issues like evolution are provided, along with the legal implications of enacting each approach.

Accepting, understanding, teaching, and learning (human) evolution: Obstacles and opportunities

“…Biology teachers lie at the intersection of a multitude of scientific, religious, political, and social factors regarding the teaching of evolution (Hermann, ). Teachers experience both external and internal conflicts over teaching evolution (Griffith and Brem, ), and the myriad cultural challenges to teaching evolution—especially human evolution—leads some teachers to de‐emphasize evolution or avoid teaching it altogether, despite its inclusion in state and national science standards (Scharmann and Harris, ; Berkman et al, ; Berkman and Plutzer, 2010; Glaze and Goldston, ).…”

“…Teachers experience both external and internal conflicts over teaching evolution (Griffith and Brem, ), and the myriad cultural challenges to teaching evolution—especially human evolution—leads some teachers to de‐emphasize evolution or avoid teaching it altogether, despite its inclusion in state and national science standards (Scharmann and Harris, ; Berkman et al, ; Berkman and Plutzer, 2010; Glaze and Goldston, ). Hermann () suggests that teachers’ approaches fall along a continuum from avoiding evolution entirely to being stringent supporters, and Berkman and Plutzer (2008) describe three categories of teacher approaches to possible resistance to teaching evolution: evolution advocates (28%), creationism advocates (13%), or the “cautious 60%” who seek to avoid controversy. Meadows et al () propose that teachers mainly fall into four categories of approaches to the perceived conflict between evolution and religion with which students come to the classroom: 1) they are unaware of it; 2) they avoid it; 3) they are disturbed by it; or 4) they are learning to manage or resolve it.…”

“…Even for teachers who accept evolution, many teachers’ refusals to teach evolution are due to pressure (from administrators, school board members, colleagues, parents, clergy, other community members, and students themselves); negative attitudes and mixed messages from state and local leaders; state, district, and school guidelines, standards, and exams for teaching evolution; actual or perceived support within the school itself for teaching evolution; their awareness of the attitudes toward the importance and teaching of evolution in their communities; their positions in their respective professional communities; their ideas about teaching and learning; unfamiliarity with laws about teaching evolution and creationism in science classrooms; lack of time; lack of knowledge, training, and preparation to teach evolution; lack of awareness of available instructional resources; and their own evolution learning experiences (Aguillard, 1998; Van Koevering and Stiehl, 1989; McGinnis and Simmons, ; Chuang, ; Brem et al, ; Griffith and Brem, ; Moore, ; Lazarowitz and Bloch, ; Moore and Kraemer, ; National Science Teachers Association, ; Asghar et al, ; Sanders and Ngxola, ; Goldston and Kyzer, ; Dotger et al, ; Fowler and Meisels, ; Nadelson and Nadelson, ; Nadelson and Sinatra, ; Bramschreiber, ; Hermann, ; Berkman and Plutzer, ; Borgerding et al, ; Glaze et al, ). In a study of Ohio high school biology teachers, 10% had been pressured not to teach evolution, and 11% had received pressure to teach creationism (Zimmerman, 1987).…”

“…Teachers respond to this pressure in a variety of ways on a spectrum which I would characterize from firm to weak—or from scientifically sound to being intentionally obfuscating, misleading, or obstructive and (sometimes) from conscious to unconscious, including: emphasizing the nature of science as a way of knowing; communicating the wide acceptance of evolution; stressing general science knowledge for an informed citizenry, including teaching real‐life applications of evolution to convey its veracity; emphasizing the focus on learning science in a science classroom; addressing the distinction and/or conflict between science and religion; noting that “alternatives” to evolution are not considered legitimate science and that evolution is the best explanation for the evidence; making explicit that they do not expect students to accept evolution, only to understand it; recognizing that students may experience conflict and inviting them to talk about it one‐on‐one; sharing their own personal views and experiences related to evolutionary conflicts; avoiding human evolution in particular; avoiding any mention of religion; teaching about evolutionary concepts without using the “e‐word”; deferring to the authority of textbooks; defending the state standards if they include evolution; failing to explain the nature of scientific inquiry; suggesting that having a thorough understanding of something is advantageous if you plan to debate it; emphasizing microevolution versus macroevolution; avoiding speciation (in general or among humans and other primates in particular); legitimizing creationist arguments; undermining the authority of established experts; or completely omitting evolution from their classes (Chuang, ; Griffith and Brem, ; Cleaves and Toplic, ; Berkman and Plutzer, 2000; Goldston and Kyzer, ; Dotger et al, ; Hermann, ; Bramschreiber, ; Berkman and Plutzer, ; Carter et al, ). Evolution is also sometimes taught at the very end of the school year, either because of an imposed syllabus or sometimes deliberately with the hopes that teachers will run out of time and not have to cover it at all (Borczyk, ; Bajd, ; personal communications with teachers).…”

“…There is overwhelming acceptance among scientists and science education organizations of the veracity and centrality of evolution and its power in unifying the sciences, especially biology (Gould, ; Alles, ; Plutzer and Berkman, ; Wiles, ; Bramschreiber, ). Evolution is a core concept in the American Association for the Advancement for Science (AAAS)'s Benchmarks for Science Literacy (Project 2061, ), the National Science Education Standards (NSES) for Grades K‐12 developed by the National Research Council in 1996 (Bybee, ) and the more recent Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; National Research Council, ), is listed first in the Core Concepts for Biological Literacy for college undergraduates (Brewer and Smith, ), “is taught matter‐of‐factly in the biology and geology departments of every respected university in the country, secular or sectarian, from the University of California at Berkeley to Brigham Young University” (Branch et al, : 330), and has been supported by empirical research from anatomy to zoology (Hermann, ). Yet evolution denial by the much of the American public has been in stark contrast to consensus within the scientific community despite nearly a century of increases in levels of formal education and additional scientific evidence (Plutzer and Berkman, ), ranging from “ignorance of the evidence to outright denial or distortion of data” (Liu, : 129), and stems from a myriad of often interwoven reasons.…”