Intelligently Designing Instruction: Preparing Middle School Pre-service Teachers

to Teach the Theory of Evolution

Richard A. HuberWatson School of Education

UNC Wilmingtonhttp://people.uncw.edu/huberr/

Dennis KubaskoWatson School of Education

UNC Wilmington http://people.uncw.edu/kubaskod/

Abstract

• How one introduces the teaching of the theory of evolution can dramatically influence your success in preparing pre-service teachers to teach this often emotionally charged subject. This session will introduce a non confrontational approach we have found successful in addressing this topic with conservative elementary and middle school methods students. Several strategies for addressing students’ misconceptions will be presented as well. The audience will be provided copies of class hand-outs and an outline of current court rulings on the teaching of evolution.

Challenging Students

• For me, the theory of evolution is a fact and I had presented it as such in both my public school biology classes and my university methods classes. Byrch was prepared and eager to challenge that presentation and view.

Purpose

• This paper will suggest one approach to dealing with the committed creationist student teacher and address the question of why support from university administration might not be forthcoming when taking a stand on this issue. In addition, a list of court decisions is provided for guidance and confidence in rejecting the call for equal time for creationism in science classes.

Literature

• Several studies have indicated that as many as 23-45% of teachers believe that giving equal time to the creationist view in science class is appropriate (Affannato, 1986, Bucker, 1983, Caylor, 1997, Eglin, 1983, Tatina, 1989).

My Observations

• When I observed Byrch’s 7th grade science class, the students were studying continental drift and completing a mountain building activity.

• Students have learned that, when an adult with a tie and notebook shows up in the back of the classroom, their teacher is vulnerable and at their mercy.

• A student in the back of the room looked at me, smiled, raised his hand and asked “Mr. Griffen, it says in our book that they have found sea shell fossils on the tops of some of our tallest mountains. How did they get there?”

• Byrch proceeded to give the creationist view that “5,000 years ago there was a great flood and ….” and I am sure the student checked to see if his question and Mr. Griffin’s response created the desired shock on my face.

Post-Conference

• After class, I informed Byrch that he had to teach science the way it was explained in the science textbook, upon which he replied, “When they ask me a question I am going to tell them the truth.”

• I told him that was not acceptable, that he was trained to teach science, hired to teach science, and that he must follow the State Science Curriculum in his approach to teaching.

• Byrch was at all times polite and respectful in his response, but made it clear that he was not about to compromise on this matter.

Post-Conference

• He also claimed that I was violating his constitutional right to freedom of religion and free speech.

• I explained to him my thoughts about the importance of the separation of church and state and that he would not be allowed to continue student teaching in this manner.

• I searched for support from my department chair and dean.

Administrative Support?

• My chair, a former special education instructor, had several bad experiences with attorneys in the past and wanted to avoid litigation at all costs.

• My dean, a former public school superintendent, suggested that, for a controversial issue like this, the official position of the state was that both sides of the issue must be presented.

Administrative Support?

• It turns out that this is a common misconception among the general public as well.

• Depending on how the question is asked, 68-76% of the general public believes the creationist view of the origin of life should be presented along with the theory of evolution in science classes (Associated Press, 1981, Cook, 1983, Mackinney, 1977, Santillanes, 1996).

• This, as we know, is a direct contradiction of every court ruling on this issue.

The Compromise

• Having received no support from my immediate supervisors at the university, I proceeded to forge a compromise with Byrch.

• He would leave his present public school assignment and finish his student teaching at a private school where he could teach the biblical version of the origin of life.

• He would receive the normal 12 hours of credit for student teaching and, therefore, finish his Bachelor’s Degree in Education.

• However, since he would be teaching in a private school he would not receive a North Carolina teaching certificate leading to licensure.

The Compromise

• The semester ended with Byrch student teaching in a Christian School without further incident.

• One month later, I received a memo from the dean informing me that Byrch had retained an attorney and planned on suing the university.

• This was not a total surprise, since Byrch had stated on numerous occasions that his constitutional rights were being violated.

• Numerous meetings with the university attorney and the school district’s attorney followed.

• I was relieved to learn that the courts have been consistent in their rulings that creationism is not science and should not be taught in science classes.

The Conclusion

• Fortunately, this case did not go to trial and the suit was dropped. However, I suspect the publicity generated by this controversy led many teachers to simply and quietly omit the teaching of evolution to avoid controversy in their classes. This outcome seemed to give the creationists a victory.

Teaching the Theory of Evolution

• Principles– Because of sexual reproduction there

is variation in offspring– All species tend to overpopulate – There is a limited food source– Competition for limited resources and

survival of the fittest

Teaching the Theory of Evolution

• Misconceptions – Man came from an ape– "It is just a theory"– Evolution is not occurring today

• Bottom Line– You have been trained and hired to

teach science not philosophy or religion

– Some ways to avoid conflict

Six Significant Court Decisions Regarding Evolution/Creation Issues from The

National Center for Science Education

• In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas• In 1981, in Segraves v. State of California• In 1982, in McLean v. Arkansas Board of

Education• In 1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard • In 1990, in Webster v. New Lenox School

District• In 1994, in Peloza v. Capistrano School

District

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5400_legal_background_2_15_2001.asp

1968: Epperson v. Arkansas

• In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not permit a state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any particular religious sect or doctrine.

1981: Segraves v. State of California

• In 1981, in Segraves v. State of California the Court found that the California State Board of Education’s Science Framework, as written and as qualified by its anti-dogmatism policy, gave sufficient accommodation to the views of Segraves, contrary to his contention that class discussion of evolution prohibited his and his children’s free exercise of religion. The anti-dogmatism policy provided that class discussions of origins should emphasize that scientific explanations focus on “how,” not “ultimate cause,” and that any speculative statements concerning origins, both in texts and in classes, should be presented conditionally, not dogmatically. The court’s ruling also directed the Board of Education to widely disseminate the policy, which in 1989 was expanded to cover all areas of science, not just those concerning issues of origins.

1982: McLean v. Arkansas B. of Ed.

• A federal court held that a “balanced treatment” statute violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Arkansas statute required public schools to give balanced treatment to “creation-science” and “evolution-science.” In a decision that gave a detailed definition of the term “science,” the court declared that “creation science” is not, in fact, a science. The court also found that the statute did not have a secular purpose, noting that the statute used language peculiar to creationist literature in emphasizing origins of life as an aspect of the theory of evolution. While the subject of life’s origins is within the province of biology, the scientific community does not consider the subject as part of evolutionary theory, which assumes the existence of life and is directed to an explanation of how life evolved after it originated. The theory of evolution does not presuppose either the absence or the presence of a creator.

1987: Edwards v. Aguillard

• In 1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court held unconstitutional Louisiana’s “Creationism Act.” This statute prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools, except when it was accompanied by instruction in “creation science.” The Court found that by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind, which is embraced by the term creation science, the act impermissibly endorses religion. In addition, the Court found that the provision of a comprehensive science education is undermined when it is forbidden to teach evolution except when creation science is also taught.

1990: Webster v. New Lenox School District

• In 1990, in Webster v. New Lenox School District, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that a school district may prohibit a teacher from teaching creation science, in fulfilling its responsibility to ensure that the First Amendment’s establishment clause is not violated, and religious beliefs are not injected into the public school curriculum. The court upheld a district court finding that the school district had not violated Webster’s free speech rights when it prohibited him from teaching “creation science,” since it is a form of religious advocacy.

Why Creationist Views Should Not Be Presented in Public School

Science Classes • Most of the creationist claims cannot be tested

and, therefore, are not science.• Two opposing scientific theories only deserve

equal time if both explain the evidence equally well.

• Which creation myth should be considered? Should those from other cultures such as Native American, African, Indian, Egyptian, Greek, Norse, etc. be considered?

• Science and religion deal with separate areas of human experience.