Teacher World

I wrote yesterday’s blog as an introduction to today’s because two states are pushing for legislation that is stirring the pot over the controversial subject of teaching evolution in our public schools.

The state of New Hampshire has proposed two bills which would require teachers in public schools to teach the theory of evolution as more of a philosophy than science. House Bill 1148 would “require evolution to be taught in the public schools of this state as a theory, including the theorists’ political and ideological viewpoints and their position on the concept of atheism.”

New Hampshire’s HB 1457, doesn’t specifically mention evolution but would “require science teachers to instruct pupils that proper scientific inquire [sic] results from not committing to any one theory or hypothesis, no matter how firmly it appears to be established, and that scientific and technological innovations based on new evidence can challenge accepted scientific theories or modes.”

While scientists agree that new discoveries can overturn old ideas, they argue that the theory of evolution, which they say is too well-established, cannot be tossed aside.

Zen Faulkes, a biology professor at the University of Texas, Pan America, said, “Bill 1457 turns skepticism into bewilderment. It would ask teachers to say to students, ‘Don’t commit to the hypothesis that uranium has more protons than carbon,’ or ‘Remember, kids, tomorrow we might find out that DNA is not the main molecule that carries genetic information.’ Evolution is as much a fact as either of those things, so it should be taught with the same confidence.”

Religious conservatives, like Republican State Rep. Gary Hopper, who helped introduce HB 1457 with district mate John Burt, feel that teaching the theory of evolution teaches students that life is simply an accident. “I want to introduce children to the idea that they have a purpose for being here,” Hopper told the Concord Monitor.

Hopper went on to say that he would like public schools to teach intelligent design; the idea that a creator sparked the creation of life, but he refrained from requiring that in this bill since other attempts to do so have failed across the country.

In February, these two bills will be discussed in hearings in the state’s House Education Committee, but David Brooks, a Nashua Telegraph columnist who has been following their progress, said that bills regarding the teaching of evolution in public schools are rare in this state, and the last time the state had an issue over evolution was in 1994.

Brooks explained that New Hampshire, with a population of 1.3 million, has 400 state representatives who get paid $100 a year for their service. He told LiveScience, “Most of them are volunteers, many of them are retirees, so a lot of unusual bills get proposed. So the fact that an unusual bill gets proposed in New Hampshire is not always as big a deal as it would be in other states.”

At the same time, a state senator from Indiana has introduced a bill that would permit school boards to require their teachers to teach creationism. State Senate Bill 89, would require that “the governing body of a school corporation may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science, within the school corporation.”

Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit organization in Oakland, California, told LiveScience, “This is a bill that directly promotes the teaching of creation science. What a dinosaur. Bills specifically saying ‘Thou shalt teach creation science’ haven’t been around for a couple of decades.”

And there’s a reason for that; a Supreme Court decision in 1987 in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard declared the teaching of creationism as science in public schools was unconstitutional. Therefore, any laws that require the teaching of creationism would be thrown out by the courts.

Scott, who is keeping a close eye on this legislation and other state legislatures around the country, said, “Teaching students that scientific explanations that are not controversial are controversial is mis-educating them. And that’s why these bills are bad.”

As a Christian, I confess that it would be difficult for me to teach high school students the theory of evolution without also presenting the theory of creationism. Shouldn’t students be given all of the facts and give them the opportunity to dissect and explore the two theories on their own? Since neither theory can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, why will schools not allow both views to be presented?

I understand the separation of church and state, but one can teach creationism without advocating that students believe this theory, just as one can teach evolution without forcing students to accept this theory. Why are we so afraid to present both, allowing teachers to lay out the facts of both theories without any personal commentary, and let students figure it out for themselves?

Is that really so scary?

Teacher-World's Blog creationism, evolution, Indiana SB 89, New Hampshire HB 1148, New Hampshire HB 1457, Rep. Gary Hopper

A study conducted about a year ago on the teaching of evolution vs. creationism in high school biology classes revealed some problematic discrepancies regarding how or if these subjects are being taught. According to the data collected, in most cases in order to avoid conflicts in their classrooms, most high school biology teachers do not take a solid position on evolution, Less than 30 percent of teachers take a strong pro-evolutionary stance on evolution, and 13 percent promote creationism, according to this study.

The National Survey of High School Biology Teachers collected data from 926 nationally representative participants regarding what they taught about evolution and creationism, how much time they spent on each subject, and what their personal feelings were on both subjects.

Michael Berkman, the co-author of the study, along with Penn State University colleague Eric Plutzer, told LiveScience, “The survey left space for [the teachers] to share their experiences. That’s where we picked up a lot of a sense about how they play to the test and tell students they can figure it out for themselves. Our general sense is they lack the knowledge and confidence to go in there and teach evolution, which makes them risk-averse.”

Francis Eberle, the executive director of the National Science Teachers Association, told LiveScience, “The implications for us are very concerning, that there are teachers who are not teaching science, who are not teaching some of the core tenets of science.”

According to the report, only 28 percent of high school biology teachers followed the recommendations on teaching evolution stipulated by the National Research Council on National Academy of Sciences. This approach includes both citing of evidence that evolution occurred and teaching evolution thematically.

Randy Moore, a science and evolution education specialist in the biology department at the University of Minnesota who was not part of the study, said, “We say [evolution is] a central idea in biology, but someone can get a biology degree and not take a class in it. We let that go in the name of religious freedom.”

At the same time, 13 percent of the teachers who were polled said that they “explicitly advocate creationism or intelligent design by spending at least one hour of class time presenting it in a positive light.” These are mostly the same group who reject the idea of evolution and the scientific method personally, in favor of the belief that God created humans in their present form less than 10,000 years ago, even if they didn’t necessarily teach this in their own classrooms.

It is important to note here that over the past 40 years in the United States all major federal court cases where local citizens or other groups have tried to get creationism or Intelligent Design into the science curriculum, have failed.

A Minnesota teacher from the study commented, “I don’t teach the theory of evolution in my life science classes, nor do I teach the Big Bang Theory in my earth science classes…. We do not have time to do something that is at best poor science.”

An Illinois teacher responded, “I am always amazed at how evolution and creationism are treated as if they are right or wrong. They are both belief systems that can never be truly or fully proved or discredited.”

“We haven’t done a good enough job with making people understand what is science and what isn’t,” said Eberle who believes that it is possible that teacher’s own scientific education is part of the problem. “Science doesn’t deal with the human condition, like why we were here. That’s fine to be covering those, but not in the science classroom.”

Then there were those 60 percent of the teachers who were polled who were dubbed by the authors as the “cautious 60 percent” because they refuse to take a position on the subject one way or the other. The researchers concluded that their refusal to do so was to avoid controversy or avoid being questioned by students and parents. This led Steven Newton, the Programs and Policy Director at the National Center for Science Education to conclude, “It would be beneficial for there to be more support from the administration, so [teachers] don’t feel out there all alone,”

Researchers concluded that many teachers from the study didn’t have an educational background that gave them the confidence to teach evolution as a scientific fact. Newton explained, “You can take very little science and get a degree and be teaching in high school. The quality of what [students learn] is so dependent on the teacher you get. It’s almost a random experience; it’s kind of the luck of the draw.”

Because of this, the authors of the study suggested that states require all education majors to take an evolution course at the university level before becoming science teachers, and that school systems should offer refresher courses for teachers who are already teaching. Berkman felt that these courses would encourage teachers to embrace evolutionary biology, thus making it easier for them to teach it with confidence.

But Newton disagreed, saying, “Many schools that focus on educating teachers aren’t research universities and may not have the resources to offer a course on evolution. The practical reality is we may just need to teach introductory biology in a way that emphasizes the importance of evolution, and that might accomplish the same goal.”

Teacher-World's Blog creationism, evolution, LiveScience, National Survey of High School Biology Teachers