Teaching+Evolution+in+the+Secondary+Biology+Classroom

Teaching Evolution in the Secondary Biology Classroom: The Legal and Moral Issues Beverly M. Whitt __ Overview __ Ever since naturalist Charles Darwin published his most famous work "On The Origin of Species", society has been torn as to how to absorb the possible implications found within its pages. Since this time, there have arisen many cases of the unconstitutionality of teaching evolution in our schools. Science teachers are responsible for informing students of the possible origins of the diversity of life on Earth as we know it today, while staying in line with the rigorous standards mandated by their respective states. Based on this responsibility, science teachers should only be required to teach scientifically supported, factual information. To exclude or diminish evolution education in the secondary biology classroom would deprive high school students of an important cornerstone of modern scientific knowledge.

What Evolution Is NOT Even in the year 2013, 154 years after the first publication of the Origin of Species, there are still many common misconceptions about the theory of evolution. One of the most commonly held misconceptions is that evolution is a “catch all” theory that is 100 percent founded on fact and describes how life originated on Earth. While evolution has taken place on the Earth’s living organisms resulting in the diversity we see today, the theory cannot explain //how// life came to be on Earth. Evolution is the natural process that acted on life after its inception. Another common misunderstanding about evolution is that individual organisms themselves evolve. It is a known scientific fact that populations, not individuals, evolve. Take for example bacteria on human hands and antibacterial soap. There will be a very small percentage of individual bacterial cells that will be able to survive a hand-washing with soap and water. The ones that survive the hand-washing do not “evolve”, however, they are able to reproduce as the process of natural selection has selected for their genes. No “new” trait is gained or lost, but the genetic material of those able to withstand the antibacterial hand soap is passed on to subsequent generations; this evokes natural selection as a mechanism of evolution.



What Evolution Is

Evolution is a blind, natural process that does not involve will, effort, or trying. It is an unguided process that relies on genetic variation and the ability of organisms to create offspring. The ability to create offspring is known as an organism’s “fitness”. Evolution is a theory. The popular view of a theory is simply an idea without solid evidence behind it. In scientific terms, a theory is a broad explanation supported by many different lines of evidence.

In science, theories are powerful tools that exhibit the following features:

· Are firmly grounded and based on evidence

· Are logically constant with other well-established principles

· Explain more than rival theories

· Have the potential to lead to new knowledge

-(National Science Teachers Association, 2012)



The Theory of Evolution is still a work in progress, as it is constantly occurring within populations all around us. There is evidence that evolution has occurred in the past. Scientists are able to infer a great deal from the fossil record to establish a history of life, lineage-splitting of different organisms, and can even determine the mechanisms of change. While the Theory of Evolution cannot explain everything about the origin of life in the universe, it does help us to understand a wide range of observations that have occurred on Earth. Other theories are inarguably included in secondary science curriculum. Two predominant theories accepted and taught in high schools today include the atomic theory of matter and the theory of plate tectonics. The theory of evolution, however, continues to remain a hot-button issue.

The Great Divide: Science //vs//. Religion

Modern beliefs of Creationism consist of two predominating theories: (1) Day-Age Creationism and (2) Evolutionary Creationism. In Day-Age Creationism each day of Creation counts as long as a thousand or even a million years of natural time. This gives the Book of Genesis validation in stating that the creation of the Earth and all of its inhabitants occurred within a seven “day” period. The second theory, Evolutionary Creationism states that God fills in the gaps of evolutionary history. God guides evolution and in doing so does not contradict the Book of Genesis or objective science. Evolutionary Creationism also considers Adam the first sentient human being, not the first biological //homo sapien//. According to blogger Robert Ashner from Sb Science Blogs, “absolutely no one denies the bare possibility of an intelligent designer behind the laws of nature…so I agree that contemporary evolutionary theory can[not] demonstrate the absence of intelligent design, and any biologist who insists that we can is overstating the case”, (Ashner, 2013).



Teachers often encounter pressure from parents to teach Creationism. Antievolutionists will often use gaps in the fossil record to undermine the theory of evolution. There are fossils that exhibit transitional features that have been discovered. The environmental conditions in which well-preserved fossils can form are rare. Soft tissues do not preserve well and are often lost to decomposition and to the elements. This does not mean that the transitional creatures or forms of creatures never existed; it only provides a probable explanation for the scarcity of transitional forms in the fossil record. Creationism involves faith and to some extent, religion. Religion deals with topics beyond the scientific realm of the natural world. Taken together outside of the classroom, it is wrong to assume that religion and science are incompatible; however, in the classroom, personal religious beliefs should be withheld. While radicals on both sides of the debate will probably never see eye to eye on the Theory of Evolution, the issue at hand is how to present a scientific theory to high school students.



__ Trend or Issue? __

Evolution is both a trend and an issue in the secondary education arena. Trend is defined as the general course or prevailing tendency while issue is defined as a subject of concern: something for discussion or of general concern. Clearly the topic of evolution fits squarely into both of these definitions. Hesitancy and discomfort in teaching the theory of evolution while suppressing the urge to broach the Creationist or alternative theories of Earth’s diversity continue to impact science education. Teachers are divided on the issue of teaching evolution in the classroom. In a study published in 2011, “28% of teachers advocate for evolution while a minority of biology teachers (13%) hold and teach Creationist views…a large portion of biology teachers take an ambivalent and/or accomodationist view toward teaching evolution and/or including Creationist rhetoric in the classroom”, (Long, 2011).

In a survey of Minnesota high school biology teachers it was found that a large majority (more than 75 percent) knew the following facts:

· They are not required to give equal time to creationism if they teach evolution · They do not have to modify their teaching of evolution to appease students who claim that evolution offends and is incompatible with their religious views · The government can use tax money to promote the teaching of evolution but cannot use tax money to promote creationism, creation-basedbooks, or creation-based exhibits · The First Amendment does not entitle a science teacher to teach creationism · A school can force a teacher to teach evolution and to stop teaching creationism

-(BioScience, 2004)

Based on the survey results presented above, a majority of teachers (at least in Minnesota) understand the law in regards to teaching evolution in their classrooms. The government cannot legally fund creationism or other faith-based origin of life theories. All of the laws banning the teaching of human evolution were overturned by 1970. Since then even “evidence against evolution” has not been approved by some states to appear in the high school science curriculum. Included in the Minnesota study of high school biology teachers done in 2004, researchers found that “only 38 percent of high school biology courses in Minnesota emphasize evolution, whereas 20 percent emphasize creationism and 23 percent emphasize both evolution and creationism…only 28 percent of teachers believe that creationism has a scientific basis; 20 percent are pressured not to teach evolution, and only about one-third are adequately prepared to teach it” (Moore, 2004).



Evolution and Education Science education has been under constant attack by antievolutionists since the theory was first made known. Since 2005, antievolution education legislation has arisen in Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Alabama and Maryland. Studies have shown that Americans’ acceptances of evolution are low and have remained unchanged for decades. While seemingly localized to the United States, the issue has the potential to become a global concern for both educators and scientists. The ASA highlights a debate that schools should “Incorporate Controversy into the Curriculum because it is simply good education.” The argument for the Incorporation of Controversy states: “when credible experts agree about a controversial subject, students should learn about the competing perspectives…this approach will enhance science instruction” (ASA, 2006). Teachers face internal struggles and external pressures over teaching evolution. The internal turmoil includes teachers having to renounce their own beliefs in the classroom and feeling uncomfortable about disrespecting the deep personal beliefs that some of their students may hold. External pressures exert themselves in the form of parent complaints about the teaching of evolution, administration intervention in a lesson plan, and even restriction coming from the board of education that may be based on a personal or religious belief system.

In the state of Georgia, the former State Superintendent of Education Kathy Cox even referred to “evolution” as a buzzword that should be removed from the state’s curriculum standards. According to the National Science Teachers Association, “It is the responsibility of science educators at all levels to stay well informed, and to inform their students on the major principles in every area of science. With biology, evolution is the leading principle”, (2006). It is important for teachers to know the legalities of teaching Evolution and “alternative theories” in the classroom to both properly educate students and to protect the integrity of their jobs.

In most states, evolution is included in the state-mandated curriculum and is required to be emphasized in the biology classroom. There are exceptions, “In June 2007, Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) signed into law legislation that changes the process by which the state adopts textbooks…making it easier for the state to introduce alternatives to accepted science into the curriculum” (Gropp, 2008). As a result of such legislation, high quality standards do not always translate to high-quality instruction of evolution-related material. This is a significant problem in the classroom because students are subject to their own engrained beliefs long before they enter high school biology. If evolution is not being taught correctly and up to a state’s rigorous standards, students are missing a critical concept in the biology classroom. Teachers’ own understanding and belief systems on the topic of evolution affect their treatment of the subject. “As many as half of the nation’s high school students get educations shaped by creationist influence”, Bioscience 2004. The nation is clearly in need of better-trained biology teachers who can “advocate for high standards of science education in their local communities”, (Science Daily, 2011).



A critical part of teaching high school science is “knowing your stuff” and being able to communicate the Theory of Evolution in an unbiased manner to impressionable high school students. Science teachers should be able to teach confidently knowing “there is no longer debate about whether evolution has taken place. There is considerable debate about how evolution has taken place”, (ASA 2006). While this is true the National Science Teachers Association “recognizes that evolution has not been emphasized in science curricula in a manner commensurate to its importance because of official policies, intimidation of science teachers, the general public’s misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, and a century of controversy”, NTSA Position Statement 2012. In an effort to foster a more accepting environment, “administrators and school boards should provide support to teachers as they review, adopt, and implement curricula that emphasize evolution. This should include professional development to assist teachers in teaching evolution in a comprehensive and professional manner”, (NTSA, 2012). As for now, it is time to settle the debate so that students can receive the proper, factually-sound scientific education that should be made available to them. Or will the debate rage on?

In My Opinion... Being a science teacher, I am required to teach evolution in the classroom. Even in college, I was required to read Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species." There are problems with the theory of evolution, as with any working scientific theory. The theory of evolution does not tell us how life came to be from non-organic materials. There is a relatively profound absence of transitional forms, along with questions about speciation that cannot be completely answered by science. This being said, I accept that religion and science can co-exist together. I myself am a practicing Catholic and have enjoyed receiving a scientific education and especially enjoy teaching science to secondary students. This Wiki page was fun and interesting to write and I look forward to growing as a graduate student and as an educator.

Annotated Bibliography _ Asher, R. (2013, May 29). A Review of evolution and belief. Retrieved from []
 * Popular science blog site that deals with multiple issues and viewpoints in science, religion, mathematics, politics and chess.

Gropp, R.E. (2008). Fyi: Threats remain for evolution education. // BioScience //, 58(1), 16. *Peer-reviewed, Scientific Journal on JSTOR.

Heath, E. (2006). Evolution After Dover. //BioScience//, 56(8), 638-639. *Peer-reviewed, Scientific Journal on JSTOR.

Long, D.E. (2011), The Politics of teaching evolution, science education standards, and being a creationist. //Journal of Research in Science Teaching//, 49(1), 122-139. *Peer-reviewed Educational Journal on JSTOR.

Moore, R. (2004). How Well do biology teachers understand the legal issues associated with the teaching of evolution?" //BioScience//, 54(9), 860-865. *Peer-reviewed, Scientific Journal on JSTOR.

Nehm, R.H. (2006). Faith-Based evolution education? //BioScience//, 56(8), 638-639. *Peer-reviewed, Scientific Journal on JSTOR.

NTSA (National Science Teacher's Association), Position Statement: The Teaching of Evolution. []
 * National Science Teacher's Association website. Up to date with information about the nature of science and scientific theories. Outlines evolution as the only model of the diversity of Earth supported by scientific evidence.

Padian, K. (2009). Ten Myths about Charles Darwin. //BioScience//, 59(9), 800-804. *Peer-reviewed, Scientific Journal on JSTOR.

Penn State (2011, January 28). High School biology teachers in the U.S. reluctant to endorse evolution in class, study finds. //Science Daily//. []
 * Science Daily is an online Scientific community of both professionals and bloggers that post a variety of information about all the sciences.

Rusbult, C. (2010, August 16). Origins Education in public schools. []
 * Collaborative page of Creationist and Non-Creationist links to information on both sides of the debate. Includes information explaining freedom, legality and what the Constitution says about teaching evolution.


 * Download a copy of a proposal focused on this trend/issue in education here:[[file:Whitt_EDCI6158_proposal.doc]]**