There’s No Room: A look at public schools’ design for science and evolution
Nicole McCormick
PHI103: Informal Logic (GSK1216H)
Instructor Micheal Pelt
May 21, 2012

The 1987 Supreme Court ruling on the case of Edward v Aguillard, struck down a Louisiana Law requiring “balanced treatment” between “creation science” and evolution. The Supreme Court found “creation science” to be unconstitutional, a statute that forbade teaching evolution unless “creation science” was also taught. Edward v Aguillard made it clear you cannot teach creation science alongside evolution (Brown, Feb2012). This argument of if evolution should be taught in public schools has waged on for decades, and as long as some continue to believe in intelligent design while others in evolution, it is a battle that will no doubt continue on, with unnatural selections for some. Intelligent design is primarily a religious belief and not a scientific tenet, which forms the basis for why it should not be taught in public school science courses. This essay will discuss how evolution in public school science classrooms serves best with the national science curriculum, and how theories of creationism and intelligent design (ID), try as they may, have no place in public science classrooms. Research will begin with data that includes the said appropriateness of evolution, and how the study of evolution in school is in line with the teachings of biological science. Next, what will be considered are the creationist and their attempts to introduce intelligent design into public schools. Previous research studied showed those in support of evolution have a basic view about evolution, and it is and always will be a part of the curriculum, according to the evolutionists supporters. Research studied for those non-supporters was extensive covering many previous court cases of school boards versus the Supreme Court, with the war continuing to wage on. This essay will show that the study of evolution today is still as important as it was in past decades. As long as the Constitution mandates separation of church and state, the issue of to have or not to have evolution in public classrooms will continue to be an important study. Research was conducted by Internet search from Google scholar, as well as the Ashford online library. Research was narrowed down from the broad topic of evolution in public schools to provide clear data for both positions. Sources found to be most beneficial were journal articles found through the Ashford library and the Web, as well as Ashford library periodicals Since the publication of “Origin” in 1859, Darwin’s theory of evolution has brought trouble to the American classrooms (Adams, Nov2005). To scientists, intelligent design or entertaining the idea of creation in the science curriculum is intellectually inappropriate, as science courses should teach sciences. According to Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education, “Evolution is not controversial in the field of science. It’s controversial in the public sphere because public education is highly politicized” (Adams, Nov2005, p.57). The Academy of Sciences calls evolution “the central concept of biology” (Berkman, 2008). Indicating that this basic concept of pure science is what should be generated throughout the school systems.
Although the United States has no national curriculum guidelines or requirements in any area of science, state governments do. These standards provide local school boards within each state with a common guide to classroom instruction in science and other subjects. While these standards vary widely in quality and detail from state to state, all recognize, at least to some degree, the importance of evolutionary theory. School boards are monitored by organizations like the National Center for Science Education,” by state academies of science, and by local scientific and professional organizations” (Brown, Feb2012, p.4), and at this time there is not a single state that uses its content standards to promote intelligent design or creationism. If the state has guidelines to follow for schools’ curriculum, then reading the bible as a form of literature in theory should not violate the First Amendment or our notions of the separation of church and state; thus, could incorporating theories from the Bible for literary purposes make evolution and intelligent design together in schools possible?
Last year marked the 400th anniversary of the King James Version of the Bible. This all-time best seller has had profound impact on the history and development of the United States. The Bible has played an important role in the education of our nation. In colonial America, people used the Bible to learn to read, and many desired to learn to read in order to read the Bible (Loewy, 2006). In Stone vs. Graham in 1980, the Court ruled that the posting of the Ten Commandments was unconstitutional. Yet, it affirmed, “The Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like” (Loewy, 2006, Vol.5 para1). If the Bible is in fact a historical book sufficient for literary purposes, then by this reasoning intelligent design based on the teachings of the Bible should not be problematic to public schools.
One of the first things to note about teaching intelligent design in schools is how different it is from teaching it in Church. Schools examine and evaluate propositions. Churches frequently indoctrinate their parishioners in them. Schools may ask: “What evidence is there of intelligent design?” Many Churches respond with the argument that God created the earth in six days, and that is proof enough. As far as schools are concerned, the “designer” of all things could now be extinct. When taught in Church, it is unlikely to be contradicted, but in school however, if evidence of intelligent design is taught, it will be contradicted by evidence of life evolving by random chance. Are students being exposed to both sides of this issue wrong? Should states be required to teach intelligent design? No one is saying that intelligent design must be taught, and no one is saying that failure to teach it constitutes disapproval of religion. But when the “Court invalidates teaching a theory of origin because of its partial congruence” (Loewy, 2006) with religion, that is disapproval. Moreover, invalidating the teaching of intelligent design in public schools is flatly inconsistent with free speech principles. Members of the Court have frequently fought over the extent to which schools can ban ideas, but no case has ever suggested that a court can force a state to remove something from its curriculum. With that, it is only fair to conclude that if the Supreme Court ever gets a case, where the School Board or Legislature’s apparent motive for integrating intelligent design into the curriculum is to maximize student exposure to different ideas about the origin of the species, and not to indoctrinate religion, the Court should uphold the provision.
Creationists’ attacks on science education have been evolving in the last few years through the alliance of different varieties. Instead of calls to teach “creation science,” one now finds lobbying for “intelligent design” (ID). The ID movement aims to overturn evolution and what it sees as a harmfully materialist worldview and to renew a belief in the existence of god foundation to Western culture, in which human beings are recognized as being created in God’s image. “In its basic generic sense, creationism refers to any view that rejects evolution in favor of the action of some personal, super natural creator” (Pennock, 2003, p. 144). Creationism is not limited to bible based views because other religions have their own creation accounts that may be in conflict with evolution. For instance, some Hindu sects reject evolution in favor of their own specific theistic account.
On October 10, 2002, the American Association for the Advancement of Science Board (AAAS) adopted a resolution that registered its’ opposition to “so-called ‘intelligent design theory,’ also known as ID” (Pennock, 2003, p. 146). This resolution includes this new form of creationism in state’s science curriculum standards as an alternative to the scientific theory of biological evolution. The ID movement was singled out by the AAAS board resolution as the new player in the creation/evolution controversy. By the late 1980’s and early 1990’s it came together as a whole under the leadership of Phillip Johnson, then a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and now is unofficially led by members of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.
The key feature of ID creationism is its attempt to unite various creationists’ factions against their common enemy under a banner of “mere creation” or “design” by temporarily setting aside internal differences. (Pennock, 2003). The ID movement calls its strategy for defeating evolution “the Wedge.” Its target is not just evolution, but also the materialist philosophy it believes props up science and is the de facto “established religion” of the West. (Pennock, 2003). The ultimate hope is to affect a renewal in our culture of Judeo-Christian theism, in which man is again understood as created in God’s image. The legal idea behind ID Wedge is to begin with a minimal position that can get in and pry open such a legal crack.

After early attempts in the 1970’s to mandate giving equal emphasis to Biblical creation alongside evolution were struck down as unconstitutional, creationists proposed the idea of “scientific creationism,” which supposedly was not religious and deserved “balanced treatment” with evolution in the science classroom. Creationists-sponsored bills along these lines were passed in Arkansas and Louisiana in the early 1980’s, but again courts struck them down as unconstitutional. The Louisiana case made it to the Supreme Court, which in its 1987 Edward v Aguillard decision held that creation science was in fact religious because it implied that human beings were created by a supernatural being, so teaching it in public schools violated the separation of church and state. However according to Justice Scalia, the people of Louisiana are quite entitled, as a secular manner, to have whatever scientific evidence there may be against evolution presented in their schools (2003). Creationists have taken this as a possible loophole; if the Court becomes even more conservative then there is legitimate worry that some future cases will create an opening for creationism. ID activists in Ohio appealed in 2002, stating the same claims as were made in Arkansas and Louisiana, arguing that the ID theory was in fact scientific and should therefore be taught: “Proponents of intelligent design are not trying to teach religion via science, but are trying to establish the validity of their theory as a scientific alternative to Darwinism” (Pennock, 2003, p. 147). After months of deliberation the Ohio State Board of Education adopted standards that did not include ID but did say students should learn “how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory” (Pennock, 2003, p.148), which the Discovery Institute hailed as a win for ID even though the board unanimously voted to include a last minute amendment stating that “the intent of this benchmark does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design” (Pennock, 2003, p.148). It remains to be seen who will win when the standards are implemented.
The battle between Church and state is an age old story, one that has no definitive answer to satisfy all. Intelligent design when considered in its traditional format primarily comes with religious undertones, and according to the government there is no place for that in science classrooms. With that said, evolution is the choice for public school science teachings, unless and until Legislature decides to utilize the Bible as a teaching tool, or incorporate the idea of intelligent design. Until such time, all teachings about intelligent design will and should remain omitted from the public school curriculum.

References
Adams, William Lee, Newsweek, November 28, 2005, Vol.146 Issue 22, p57-57, 3/4p, 2 color photographs.
Berkman, MB, Pacheco JS, Plutzer, E (2008), Evolution and Creationism in America’s Classroom: a national portrait. PLoS Bid 6(5): e/24. DOI: 10.1371/Journal.pbio.0060124.
Brown, Simon. Church and State, Feb2012, Creationism Crusade. Vol.65 Issue 2, p4-5, 2p.
Hess, Diana. Social Education, Jan/Feb2006, Vol. 70 Issue1, p8-13, 6p.
Junior, Nyasha. Christian Science Monitor, Studying the Bible in public schools can help US students ‘win the future,’ 8/2/2011, pN PAG, 1p.
Loewy, Arnold H., First Amendment Law Review, 2006, Vol. 5 No.1.
Pennock, R.T. Creationism And Intelligent Design Annual Review, June2003, Annu.Rev.GenomicsHum.Genet.2003. 4:143-63. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.genom.4.070802.110400.