Science and Technology:
Public Attitudes and Understanding

National Science Board
National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics
Science and Engineering Indicators 2004
Arlington, VA (NSB 04-01) [May 2004]

More Than a Century After Darwin, Evolution Still Under Attack in Science Classrooms

In 1999, the Kansas State Board of Education decided to delete evolution from the state's science standards. The action received widespread press coverage and sparked an outcry in the science community. Most of the public also disagreed with the decision, which was reversed after board members who had voted for the change were defeated in the next election.

Thus began another round of attacks on the teaching of evolution in public school classrooms. Similar eruptions have been occurring since the landmark 1925 Scopes "monkey" trial. Although Tennessee teacher John Scopes was convicted, science ended up being the true victor, according to the history books and thanks to the play Inherit the Wind. The next milestone occurred in 1987 when the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that prohibited the teaching of evolution unless equal time was given to creationism.

Recently, controversy over the teaching of evolution has emerged in Kansas and nearly 20 other states. In general, the recent attacks on evolution have come from two directions: a push to introduce "intelligent design" in science classrooms as a viable alternative to evolution and efforts to add evolution disclaimers to science textbooks.

In June 2001, the U.S. Senate adopted a "sense of the Senate" amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act authorization bill (which later became known as the "No Child Left Behind Act"). Although the text of the amendment appeared to promote the development of students' critical thinking skills, it also contained the following sentence: "Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist." Concerned that the amendment was a thinly veiled attempt to inject the theory of intelligent design into science curriculums (because of the singling out of evolution as a controversial theory), nearly 100 science organizations mobilized in opposition to the amendment. The amendment never made it into the final bill, but some of the language was included in the conference committee report. Although such text does not have the force of law, proponents of the intelligent design theory began to claim congressional endorsement in their efforts to persuade school boards in several states and localities to include the theory in science instruction.

In 2002, Ohio's state school board became embroiled in a year-long controversy about the inclusion of evolution in the state's science education standards (Clines 2002). Although the board ultimately approved standards that strongly advocated the teaching of evolution, the door was left open for teachers to permit classroom discussions that treat intelligent design as an alternative to evolution (Sidoti 2002).

School boards in other states have also been involved in evolution-related controversies. In Georgia, the Cobb County school board decided to affix stickers to science textbooks stating that "evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." This was not the first such action. In 1996, Alabama began requiring evolution disclaimer stickers on biology textbooks. Similar statewide efforts were turned back in Louisiana (Maggi 2002) and Oklahoma (Cable News Network 2001). Although Alabama now has the only statewide policy, local governments in other states are using disclaimer stickers. Cobb County and other locales are facing legal challenges to the evolution disclaimers.

Controversy over the teaching of evolution has also affected institutions of higher education:

This kind of controversy is almost unheard of in other industrialized nations. However, that may be changing. For example, there was a recent uproar in England when teachers at a college were accused of giving preference to a creationism interpretation of biology.

 The theory of intelligent design holds that life is too complex to have happened by chance and that, therefore, some sort of intelligent designer must be responsible. Critics claim that this theory is simply a more sophisticated form of creationism (which the courts have said may not be taught in public schools). They argue that intelligent design theory has nothing to do with science because its assertions are not falsifiable: they cannot be tested or observed and cannot undergo experimentation (Morris 2002). In contrast, "[evolution] has been directly observed in operation not only in the laboratory but also in the field. Where there is still room for argument and discussion is in the precise contributions of different mechanisms to evolutionary change. In this vibrant debate, intelligent design offers no meaningful contribution" (Greenspan 2002). According to Eugenie C. Scott, president of the National Center for Science Education, "There aren't any alternative scientific theories to evolution" (Watanabe 2002). In October 2002, the American Association for the Advancement of Science Board of Directors passed a resolution on intelligent design that "calls upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of 'intelligent design theory' as a subject matter for science education" (Pinholster 2002).

 References

Cable News Network. 2001. Alabama keeps evolution warning on books. http://www.cnn.com/2001/fyi/teachers.ednews/11/09/evolution.ap. Accessed 16 July 2003.

Clines, F. X. 2002. Ohio board hears debate on an alternative to Darwinism. New York Times, 12 March.

Greenspan, N. S. 2002. Not-so-intelligent design. The Scientist16(5):12.

Madigan, N. 2003. Professor's snub of creationists prompts U.S. inquiry. New York Times, 3 February.

Maggi, L. 2002. Evolution disclaimer is struck down. Times-Picayune, 13 December.

Morris, H. J. 2002. Life's grand design: A new breed of anti-evolutionists credits it to an unnamed intelligence. U.S. News, 29 July.

Olsen, F. 2002. Accreditor denies approval to Christian college in Virginia, citing oath on creationism. Chronicle of Higher Education, 13 May.Palevitz, B. A. 2002. Designing science by politics. The Scientist 16(11): 25.

Pinholster, G. 2002. AAAS board resolution urges opposition to "intelligent design" theory in U.S. science classes. American Association for the Advancement of Science news release, 6 November. Available at http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id.shtml.

Sidoti, L. 2002. Ohio school board OKs science standards. Associated Press, 10 December.

Watanabe, M. E. 2002. Profile Eugenie C. Scott "Giving ammo to the choir." The Scientist 16(11): 60. In 2001, the president of one of these organizations, Eugenie C. Scott of the National Center for Science Education, received the National Science Board Public Service Award for increasing public understanding of science and engineering.