Return to Main Menu

The week before the start of the new semester would be a busy one for Sandra Maxwell. As one of three biology teachers at Irving Community College in Marshall, Alabama, she would have to meet with the entire science department, get her laboratory ready, and review the new textbooks.

Last year the department had gone through the long, tedious adoption procedure that involved reading and rating over fifteen different books. They had narrowed the fifteen down to three, and the community college board picked from those. Sandra really didn't care which one they had picked; no matter what, she would have to redo her lessons to fit a new book.

There was even more about her new textbook that Sandra didn't know. The Alabama State Board of Education had adopted an anti-evolution insert to go in all high school and state college biology texts. The insert stated that evolution is a "controversial theory" accepted by "some scientists." When Sandra saw the insert, she was upset. Could she teach creationism?

Creationism, broadly speaking, is the view that God (the Judeo-Christian God) created the universe, life, and the various kinds of life. Some creationists have sought to undermine the theory of evolution by claiming, for example, that the earth is only 10,000 years old, not 4.5 billion, and that therefore evolution hasn't had time to occur. They also have argued that DNA could not have developed on its own without the help of an "intelligent agent"-namely, God.

Ever since State v Scopes, the famous Tennessee "Monkey Trial" in 1925 (dramatized in the 1960 film Inherit the Wind), the biology classroom has been the site of a battle pitting science against religion. In the era of the Scopes trial, American fundamentalists had pressed for, and achieved in some states, the passage of anti-evolution laws. More recently, as reported in Science magazine in 1996, creationists have attempted a new strategy: persuading local school boards to give "equal time" in school curricula to alternative theories such as "scientific creationism." In several states-Ohio and Georgia being two-legislatures are considering bills that will require biology teachers to present "alternative theories" to evolution.

Sandra Maxwell and her fellow biology teachers were confused and unhappy about the situation. As a teacher, Sandra wasn't sure what to do.

Questions

1. What should Sandra do? Give three options.
2. If you were a member of the legislature in any of the states considering the bills referred to, would you vote to include "creationism" in the curriculum? Give three reasons why or why not.
3. Some biology teachers are skipping evolution altogether in order to avoid the controversy. Do you think evolution should be left out of the curriculum? Why or why not?
4. Although many of the "anti-evolution laws" have been struck down at the state and federal level, groups have found other ways to promote "creationism." One of these is getting onto local school boards who select textbooks. What might textbook companies do to avoid problems with these school boards? Give three options.
5. In 1982, in McLean v Arkansas Board of Education, a federal district court ruled that "creation science" is religion, and in 1987, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that in Edwards v Aguillard, ruling that "creationism" could not be taught in the public schools. Speculate on the reasoning behind these rulings.