Teaching Evolution and the Nature of Science
Decades after the landmark Scopes Trial, the classroom debate around evolution versus creationism continues.
Published March 25, 2006
By Jennifer Tang
Raising the topic of intelligent design in adult company is likely to instigate a lively debate about science and religion. But in a public-school science classroom, referring to “ID” as an alternative to the theory of evolution is not just controversial. It’s unconstitutional.
In December 2005, a U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania sided with a group of 11 parents in Dover, Pennsylvania, who sued the local school board over a statement it had instructed science teachers to read aloud to biology students. The statement suggested that “evolution is a flawed theory,” and presented intelligent design, which contends that life developed with help from an intelligent, creative entity, as an alternate scientific theory.
The court ruled that teaching intelligent design is akin to teaching religious creationism and violates the Establishment Clause that bars public institutions from supporting religious causes.
Among the Dover High School educators who refused to comply with the board’s instructions on the grounds that the Pennsylvania code of education bars them from presenting information they believe to be false, was biology teacher Jennifer Miller, who was called as a witness in the trial.
At a conference to be held at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York on April 21 and 22, Teaching Evolution and the Nature of Science, Miller will discuss her experience at the Dover trial and advise teachers and education officials on dealing with the challenges posed by intelligent design advocates. Two other trial witnesses, Kenneth Miller, co-author of the biology textbook used at Dover High School, and Robert Pennock of Michigan State University, will also speak at the event, which is sponsored by The New York Academy of Sciences.
Putting Words in Their Mouths
The controversy at Dover High School erupted when an intelligent design advocate who sat on the school board led a protest against the school’s science curriculum. Teachers there didn’t know it at the time, but organizations such as the Discovery Institute, an anti-evolution think tank, and the Thomas More Law Center, a law firm “dedicated to the defense and promotion of the religious freedom of Christians,” were trolling for a test case. “We happened to be it,” said Miller.
The school board also suggested futher reading for ninth-grade biology classes: Of Pandas and People, a book offered by a publisher of “textbooks presenting a Christian perspective.”
What Miller considered to be even more objectionable was that the school board’s requirement “did not permit students to ask me any questions about this in class — it directed them to take their questions home”— an assault on her authority as a teacher, Miller said.
Though Miller said she thought it was unfair that the students seemed caught in the middle of a battle, she added, “Ironically, most of my students didn’t understand the larger implications of including intelligent design in the science curriculum. They just heard a one-minute statement and probably thought, ‘What’s the big deal?'” she recalled.
Stress on Her Students
Nevertheless, the students did not escape the controversy. Miller said no other incident in her 13-year career as a biology teacher at Dover caused as much aggravation and conflict, and she feared that the ensuing media attention and litigation would distract her students from their studies. “The needs of students were being overlooked,” she said.
Even worse, as news about intelligent design and its advocates in Dover spread, the school itself became an object of ridicule as well as a lightning rod for the scientific community. She heard reports that students from other schools were making fun of Dover High School and that a pro-intelligent design school board member threatened to burn a painting depicting the progress of evolution. “One parent told me that her daughter was visiting a college and was embarrassed to say that she was from Dover. Our students deserve better than having to live with the stigma of intelligent design,” Miller said.
United We Stand
Miller said that perhaps the most vital lesson she took away from the trial was of the importance of having a supportive, united community of teachers and other education officials. “We were lucky at Dover to have the backing of our faculty, and we stood together as a whole science department,” she said. “If teachers face pressure, they should seek help from national organizations, such as the National Center for Science Education, National Science Teachers Association, and their local teacher associations.”
In addition, teachers can look for support from the science community. “There is no controversy in the scientific community about teaching evolution or intelligent design/creationism, so any science organization would be able to give assistance,” she said.
Teaching Other Teachers
The experience has also been a springboard for Miller, who will be addressing scores of science teachers from all levels of education nationwide at the Teaching Evolution conference here next month, not to mention state and local officials responsible for science education in New York.
“I am very enthusiastic about the conference — it will give me a great opportunity to give specific suggestions to teachers from schools all over the country who might be confronted with some of these same issues,” she said. “By the time the conference is over, I believe teachers will be well-prepared to defend evolution and lobby against intelligent design.”
Perhaps the most important part of the conference, she said, will be the Nature of Science section, which will demonstrate conclusively that “science is heavily indebted to the theory of evolution, and that it is impossible to teach science without understanding the concept.”
Also read: Evolution and Intelligent Design in the Classroom
