Intelligent Education: Evolution in School

Brooke Edwards

 College of Saint Mary

LITERATURE REVIEW

- WHY TEACH EVOLUTION IN SCHOOL:

- WAYS TO APPROACH EVOLUTION IN THE CLASSROOM:

- ISSUES IN TEACHING EVOLUTION:

DISCUSSION

References

Abstract 

The debate over teaching evolution in schools has gripped this country for much of the last century and it continues today. Despite the controversy evolution it is still required curricula in American schools. Literature on the subject indicates that learning about evolution is not only beneficial but suggests that some methods of presentation are superior to others. As with any contentious topic, teaching this subject is not without its obstacles. Teachers need to be keenly aware of the controversy surrounding this issue and must broach this topic with sensitivity and finesse. Further research is suggested to illustrate what impact, if any, the concurrent teaching of intelligent design has on student understanding of the theory of evolution and the scientific process. 

Intelligent Education: Evolution in School

The debate over the evolution of life has captivated educators and scholars long before the Scopes trial of 1925. This trial; however, brought the issue into the forefront and the battle over evolution has raged ever since. Evolution is now a required part of school curricula and is a part of the national education standards in science. Nevertheless, this subject continues to be challenged by creationists who seek to change state standards, student textbooks, and attempt to influence individual schools and educators. Proponents of evolution have won several battles in court over the last few decades. However, it is clear the conflict has yet to resolve.

Despite the highly publicized courtroom dramas over evolution, local control over education continues to have more of an impact over what actually happens in America’s classrooms. Although there is fierce opposition to the teaching of evolution in the public school setting it remains a required subject. We will examine why evolution should continue to be taught in public schools, how it is best approached in a classroom, and some of the potential pitfalls in broaching this topic in a public school setting. This issue is applicable not only for educators in the U.S. but is increasingly becoming an issue for educators in other areas of the world, such as the U.K., as well (Reiss, 2008).

            Educators and theologians are divided over unequal grounds. There are scientists who support creationism and religious officials who support evolution. The controversy over evolution is principally driven by the proponents of creationism and intelligent design (ID).  The effects of this debate are far reaching. As Mooney pointed out, the question over evolution is an antecedent to the general attack on science as a whole (2005). I theorize that the research will support teaching evolution in order to provide a firm foundation for other forms of scientific learning and inquiry. In addition, I also believe that a straightforward approach to teaching evolution is the best approach to educating students about this topic. Teachers cannot be scared to share the basic tenets of scientific conjecture simply because of the controversy surrounding it; rather, teachers need to make students aware that science is science and religion is religion and by examining one it is possible to continue to hold a belief in the other. I also believe that educators have not heard the last of the deliberation over teaching evolution in public schools. As long as fundamentalist groups continue to see evolution as a threat to their beliefs they will continue to fight the presentation of this material in our classrooms. Educators must remain steadfast in their pursuit of providing students with a quality education and must not seek to placate special interest groups at the expense of our students’ and indeed our countries future. 

Controversy has plagued evolution even before Darwin published his evolutionary theories. His ideas sparked debate amongst scientist and laypeople alike. Evolution continues to be a contentious topic both in and out of the scientific community. Although many other religions have found a happy balance between their religious beliefs and the theory of, there are many Christians who believe that because evolution does not coincide with the bible’s recount of creation that the two beliefs cannot coexist (Ross, 2005). However, in today’s science classroom these ideas must find a way to mingle in the minds of the students who enter our classrooms. We must find a way to help students understand and appreciate the scientific process even if they choose not to believe in the principals themselves.

LITERATURE REVIEW

            While what ultimately goes on in a classroom is up to teachers and students; state education standards command increased performance in standardized tests to maintain funding. As a result teachers are compelled to gear their lessons toward preparing students for such assessment. The National Science Education Standards, published by the federal government’s Department of Education, are used as the basis for national standardized testing. Not surprisingly evolution is one of the major subjects students are expected to be familiar with. A few prominent organizations attempt to guide evolution education in American public schools, largely in accordance with National Science Education Standards ideals.

            The American Association for the Advancement of Science founded Project 2061. According to Project 2061’s website this group  is focusing on developing curricula “to help all Americans become literate in science, mathematics, and technology”. Furthermore, its work has earned the project a reputation as the "single most visible attempt at science education reform in American history.” Project 2061 has several well known publications, Science for All Americans and Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy, which offer guidelines for teachers on what students should know about scientific methods and scientific knowledge at given grade levels.

            There is a great deal of literature on the subject of evolution; many researchers have investigated the impact of evolution on the history of science and its importance in today’s classroom. Because of the scope of this study I focused on literature which supported the teaching of evolution in the classroom and also concentrated on reviewing peer-reviewed articles written primarily within the last ten years. It is no coincidence that this time frame coincides with the recent escalation of the debate over teaching evolution in the public school setting. We are experiencing history in the making; it is up to us how the future history texts will read. It is my sincerest hope that the history books report that creationists and evolutionists were able to come together and form an understanding of the importance of evolutionary education in today’s schools.

One of the areas where American education is currently suffering is in the area of science. As Bleckmann (2006) points out that the teaching of evolutionary theory in the classroom has been argued over, perhaps more than any other scientific concept (p. 151). Since the debate over the teaching of evolution in the public schools is, arguably, the most controversial topic in science education; it would behoove educators to be more aware of how evolutionary theory is currently approached and what can be done differently to help students understand these concepts.

            Research by Lerner (2003) and the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, an education reform organization, illustrates how well individual states incorporate evolution into their standards for biology education. Lerner graded each state is graded on an A to F minus scale. 

The study found that ten states were rated at a level A, twenty-one were performing at a B or C level, and the rest were at a D or below (p. xii). States presentation of evolution was graded based on their use of the word evolution, the treatment of biological evolution, human evolution, geological evolution, cosmology, connection drawn to historical sciences, use of creationist jargon, and the application of a disclaimer which undermines the message of the text. Nebraska received a C for its treatment of evolution due to some creationist inclusion; however, it received a B for its overall commitment to science standards (p. 13-14). Lerner points out that “Biological evolution is just one of the most important of many broad issues on which substantially all working scientists agree. There may be a few persons with scientific credentials who disagree, but they do not contribute to the progress that is the hallmark of science” (p. 25). Lerner’s research illustrates the dramatically different ways in which each state manages the subject of evolution and science education in its classrooms. This very clearly illustrates that some children are certainly getting a better science education than others based on the influence of certain creationism and ID groups in their state, district, and schools.

WHY TEACH EVOLUTION IN SCHOOL:

            It is essential that educators continue to strive to make sure that evolution remains a part of today’s science curriculum. The teaching of ID and creationism as science will send students understanding of the scientific process into a tailspin. By accommodating ideas such as creationism, we may endanger students’ appreciation of many aspects of biology in areas as diverse as biochemistry, classification, ecology, genetics, and even physiology (Cleaves, & Toplis, 2007, p. 34). As a recent study pointed out, “ID makes no testable predictions. There is nothing in this concept that allows for scientific investigation of the “designer.”” (Attie et al., 2006, p. 1135).  The authors go on to point out that although the evolutionary timeline has several interruptions, it is the cornerstone of scientific education and inquiry. “The constant, unanswered assault on evolution is harmful to science and science education. ID and its progeny rely on supernatural explanations of natural phenomena. Yet all of science education and practice rests on the principle that phenomena can be explained only by natural, reproducible, testable forces” (Attie et al., 2006, p. 1136). In order for students to develop the critical thinking skills we so value as a society we must promote the scientific process that will enable them to develop into the researchers of tomorrow. Attie et al.(2006) contends that “ID is therefore not simply an assault on evolution: it is an assault on science itself” (p. 1136).

            Many critics of evolutionary theory hold misconceptions about the basic facts and the scholarly foundations of evolution. Scientists have repeatedly appealed for better education of the public in this issue (p. 158). This perhaps is the crux of the problem, if students are not being adequately educated in these principals they will in turn grow up to be adults who do not understand these concepts. As we can see, many adults who fail to grasp the importance of evolutionary theory will continue to fight the teaching of evolutionary theory. As Culotta & Pennisi (2005) indicate, evolution is indeed the foundation of biology.  Each breakthrough in biology and medicine rests on these concepts. Every year, scientists uncover astonishing discoveries all tied to the principals of evolution (p. 1878). This research illustrates the importance of a good foundation in evolutionary theory in the advancement of scientific understanding.

            Some science teachers feel pressured to eliminate some aspects of their teaching in the effort to teach the basic scientific theories and avoid the confrontation that plagues our schools. Schools in certain areas face increasing legal opposition to evolution education which saps an already struggling educational system of much needed funds.  Indeed, the cost of fighting the battle over evolution in schools is indeed costly to all parties involved, most notably the students who lose on all fronts. Attie et al. (2006) points out that although these court battles have defeated the proponents of creationism and ID, such battles serve to further divide schools and communities. Another casualty in the battle over evolution and science is the threat this poses to the future scientific advances possible in the United States. Previously advanced scientific thinking is taking a backseat to the political agendas of these special interest groups (Attie et al., 2006, p. 1135). 

            The teaching of creationism is a poor choice by educators in a science classroom. By exposing students to these ideas in a science setting we are setting these students up for academic failure. The principals of creationism and ID are based on, at best, questionable facts and findings. The ideas are more philosophical and theological than science. Judge William R. Overton stated in his 1982 ruling in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education that creationism fails to be a science because it fails to satisfy the essential characteristics of science.

The essential characteristics of science are:
(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) Its is falsifiable.

Unfortunately, for creationists and proponents of ID their models of creation do not even begin to fit into this definition. This is not to say that creationism does not have its place for students who would like to learn about it. However, that place is not a science classroom in a public school.

            A public education classroom is charged with the duty of providing adequate education for all who enter its doors. This includes teaching students about the basic principles that they will need to know and understand to be successful. In order for the United States to regain its position as a world power we need to produce leaders who are well educated, especially in the key areas of math, science, and technology. Students need a solid foundation from which to build their understanding of scientific inquiry and theory.

WAYS TO APPROACH EVOLUTION IN THE CLASSROOM:

Besterman and Baggott la Velle (2007) point out that most instructors use examples of Darwin’s finches on the Galapagos Islands, or his studies of the Peppered Moth to introduce evolutionary concepts. The authors suggest that these may not be the best choices when presenting these ideas.  To more effectively stimulate students they suggest using an activity involving human evolution which challenges the traditional scientific model of evolution. An activity such as this would allow the students to experiment in a hands-on fashion and would also allow them to challenge some of their previously held beliefs about evolution.  

            Other studies suggest that students may relate to evolution if it is presented to them in a more modern real-life scenario. Many students are familiar with investigatory “CSI” type of programming on television, the finding and analyzing of evidence on these programs is similar to the way in which we must analyze the evidence presented to us about evolution or any other scientific theory.  Just as the investigators in the program eliminate suspects we too must create and test new hypotheses about evolution based on the evidence available. We can see, based on what we know right now, that there are many pieces of evidence supporting evolution (Hlodan, 2005, p. 199). The key in this activity is that students get to experience interacting with data and information and are able to draw their own conclusions. This gives the students the opportunity to ‘discover’ evolution on their own, and possibly more believable, terms.

            Still others point out that if teachers are going to allow other creation theories in theory classroom it is imperative that they stress that the theory of evolution is the only scientific theory acknowledged by the scientific community (Cleaves, & Toplis, 2007, p. 34). This prevents the discussion from drifting to non-science topics and keep the classroom focused on the theories being presented. This is especially important as Peshkin (2006) so appropriately points out, “People's previous experience has made them wary of scientists discussing religion” (p. 47). Teachers should avoid discussions about religion in the classroom whenever possible out of principal. Students are very impressionable and the last thing a  teacher wants is to receive an angry phone call from a parent over a well intended conversation about religion. Pierce (2007) suggests that the debate over creation and evolution is holding back America’s progress by preventing the effective interaction between students and science and technology (p. 125).   Other research supports and expands on this, as Bybee (2001) suggests, “Such misconceptions about science clarify the need for a biology education that includes developing an understanding of such ideas as the methods of inquiry; the role of evidence; the place of critique and skeptical review; the tentative nature of explanations; the connections between the current body of scientific knowledge and proposed explanations; the acceptance, modification, or rejection of alternative explanations; and the explanatory power of models and theories” (p. 311). Students need to be able to interact with their environment and must understand what their finding suggest and how that ties into previous bodies of evidence.

            Teachers must exercise caution not to ignore the evolution and creationism issue, if students were to believe the earth was flat, this issue would be readily addressed in the classroom (Henderson, 2007, p. 75). It is for the same reason that creationism and ID must not be overlooked. “It should also be made clear that the objection to creationism and ID is not based on which theory is "right." In a science class, science is taught” (Henderson, 2007, p. 75). Teachers need to remain firm and insistent in their presentation to students that creationism and ID are not scientific theories. Art history isn't taught in chemistry class, nor should it be. In like terms, the teaching of religion in science class is inappropriate. Other helpful strategies, according to Henderson (2007), might be to clarify that there is no opposition to religious beliefs; however, in a science classroom we will not be examining a religious text as a science book (p. 76). Educators must also educate themselves to ensure that they are presenting the most accurate information available to their students. Rees found that many textbooks have provided simplified, imprecise, and flat out incorrect information about Darwin’s role in the theory of evolution. Darwin has been credited him with findings that he did not make and some have even reprinted the others historical inaccuracies (p. 53). This places the educator in the role of teacher as well as expert. If teachers are well informed their students will be knowledgeable and up to date when they enter the world with their newly imparted knowledge. If, however, a teacher is supplying his or her students with outdated research they will not be as well-equipped for their journey.

            The scientist and theologian team of Hewlett, & Peters (2006) clarify their stance in the creationism and evolution debate by stating that “No theological reason exists to justify teaching or learning half-baked or inferior science” (p. 106). They go on to explain that it is possible for religious minds to accept and embrace evolution as a strong scientific theory, while still supporting their own religious beliefs. The belief in a higher power and in the theory of evolution need not be mutually exclusive as some might suggest. The authors conclude that the teaching of creationism is not sufficient to produce sufficient scientific understanding and will not drive the future of scientific knowledge and understanding. “Scientific Creationism and Intelligent Design, even if conceived for wholesome reasons by well-intentioned people, do not represent the best science. We measure the quality of science by its fertility. By ‘fertility’ we mean the ability of a scientific theory to generate research projects that lead to new knowledge. What fertility leads to is a progressive research program that advances human understanding of the natural world; and in many cases this advance in understanding leads to innovative technology, such as medical therapy. The theory we know as Neo-Darwinian evolution meets this criterion. The theory we know as Neo-Darwinian evolution meets this criterion. It’s producing new knowledge every day (Hewlett, & Peters, 2006, p. 106). The authors suggest that a strong curriculum will offer opportunity for discussion of the cultural controversy over creationism, ID, and evolution. The authors caution, however, that when students are exploring scientific principals in the classroom and lab that the evolutionary model be exclusively utilized (p. 107). I find these authors to be very well grounded in both scientific and religious theories and principals. Their approach is more welcoming to members of all cultures, beliefs, and faiths. By allowing students to briefly discuss their concerns they will feel as if their opinions have been heard and will be more willing to learn about the subject and to participate in the activities.

            Other religious individuals have acknowledged the importance of evolution. Pope John Paul II acknowledged the significance of evolution illustrating that, although it is not in keeping with the Vatican’s belief of the origins of humanity, it is a valid and important theory.  John Paul said in 1998, “Today, almost half a century after the publication of (Humani Generis), new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory” (Peters Ed., 1998, p. 150). This support from such a prominent religious figure certainly supports the idea that evolution and religion can coexist.

            The University of California at Berkeley’s evolution website includes recommendations for teaching evolution and has lesson plans which illustrate various steps in the evolutionary process. They list several potential pitfalls teachers may face in teaching evolution:

1)      Use appropriate terminology: For example, teachers should use the term evidence to describe the scientific findings which support evolution.

2)      Avoid using confusing terms: Unclear terms and definitions may mislead students in their understanding. One such word often misused is adapt, which could produce the incorrect understanding that evolution consists of organisms adapting to changes in their environments rather than a change in a species over time due to natural selection. Similarly students are confused by the term common ancestor, which many incorrectly interpret to mean that humans evolved from chimps. This is a commonly held misconception by many that humans evolved from chimps. The correct evolutionary theory is that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

3)      Check to make sure you do not leave students with the wrong impression: This is a classic problem when teachers imply that evolution is always moving toward better changes and improvements in the species. In actuality evolution is not necessarily predestined to occur in this way.

4)      Stay up to date with new evidence supporting evolution: Teachers need to make sure that they are incorporating appropriate activities into the students learning to assist and not detract from evolutionary learning. Some commonly misleading activities are making ‘fossils’ out of plaster or clay or having students engage in a debate over creationism and evolution.

ISSUES IN TEACHING EVOLUTION:

            Teachers are often concerned over the legal implication of teaching evolution in the public school setting. Moore, Jensen, & Hatch (2003) point out that an understanding of the legal issues in teaching evolution and creationism in public schools can also help teachers maintain the integrity of their courses and better serve their students (p. 770). Fortunately, teachers are offered protection by current legislation which protects everyone from becoming another John Scopes. However, as the educational climate continues to change it is important to stay aware of all changes in the educational landscape.

            The educational happenings are not just concerning to teachers. Members of our communities are also aware and involved in the educational process. For instance, in 2005 the Kansas Board of Education changed its state standards to include communication about ID with the teaching of evolution. A concerned citizen, Bobby Henderson (2006), proposed that if one theory of ID was taught then all theories should be given equal time in the classroom.  Henderson proposed that a Flying Spaghetti Monster actually created the universe. Although his story was meant to satirize the teaching of creationism in school it leads one to consider the multitude of creation stories passed down through different cultures. If we do delve into creationism in the classroom it does indeed seem culturally biased to only examine our own version of the events. A culturally competent classroom would seek to educate students on a variety of theories; however, in examining these stories it is evident that this type of research is a far cry from scientific inquiry and would be better suited to a theology or sociology.

            There is much discussion over whether or not state standards effectively address the need for evolution in the classrooms. The presence, or lack thereof, can create a climate which fosters educational restrictedness. Moore (2002) indicates that various issues within individual states may be hindering scientific progress. “The presence of unsatisfactory or useless standards for teaching evolution also coincides with biology teachers’ lack of emphasis in evolution ( as in Tennessee and Oklahoma) and states’ antiscience policies, such as requiring antievolution disclaimers in biology textbooks (as in Alabama, for example). Low standards for teaching are found not only in the Bible Belt; they also occur in states  such as Ohio and Illinois” (p. 378). Moore’s research clearly indicates that substandard regulations may be a culprit in preventing adequate education in evolutionary theory. Moore (2002) goes on to point out that, although the standards are not always adhered to, they are important since they provide for the educators who do choose to teach evolution in their classroom. The author emphasizes that it is essential that we give emphasis to the fact that evolution is the “unifying concept in biology”, without evolution a complete understanding of biology cannot be achieved (p. 380). Moore’s research further confirms that evolutionary theory is a key theory and supports the idea that all students should be exposed to the theory of evolution.

            Both science and religion have had a major role in contributing to the development of American culture. Both play an important role in nearly everyone’s life, even the lives of those who do not partake in either. The role of religion is to attend to moral and existential questions, whereas science does not. Science, however, enables us to understand the world around us using observable and measurable information (Peshkin, 2006, p. 46).  The author goes on to say that “Science and religion have different assumptions, different rules of inference, and different definitions of truth or reality. The fence that surrounds science is the test by experiment. That fence is both the greatest strength and the most fundamental limitation of science, and it needs to be respected from both sides” (p.46). The issue of giving respect is especially important; educators, administrators, politicians, scientists, parents, students, and the general public all need to give each other respect and value the other’s beliefs. The old adage rings true, you have to give respect to get respect.

            The debate on education does not simply involve scientists as proponents of evolution and religious leaders as creationists. Many scientists participate in and have opinions regarding religion, however, as a scientist they cannot sincerely make reference to scientific evidence when evaluating the validity of religion. In the same way, creationists and proponents of ID should not compare their objection to a sound evidence based substantiation of their claims an ideals (p. 46). Religion and science need to be able to come to a basic understanding that science is not going to remove the need for, or people belief in, spirituality. An appreciation must then also be granted to scientists where religious individuals will stop trying to deny scientific evidence because it does not fall into their belief system. I agree with the conclusion drawn by Annas (2006) about the debate between creationism, ID, and evolution: “As long as the controversy is taught in classes on current affairs, politics, or religion, and not in science classes, neither scientists nor citizens should be concerned” (p. 2281). Sadly, this view is not universally shared and the issue over evolution being taught in the public school setting promises to continue into the foreseeable future.

DISCUSSION

            Throughout the research there were several common themes. Firstly, researchers support that evolution is the cornerstone of biology education and is an essential element in science education. Another theme is that research does not support teachers trying to form a correlation from creationism to the theory of evolution. Finally, research shows that the debate over teaching evolution in the public schools promises to continue into the foreseeable future.

            The findings did support and expand upon the results that I had predicted from this research. The findings also suggest that not only is creationism and ID not helpful to students in understanding the scientific process, but teaching these ideas in science can actually hinder students in their understand of these basis principals. This research is consistent with other research findings on this topic. Other research showed that the teaching of evolution was indeed essential for students to progress in their understanding of the scientific process. Researchers exploring ways to present evolutionary findings did differ in that some encourage brief discussion surrounding the controversy and others denounce this type of dialogue.

            Personally, I feel that the method by which evolution should be presented would vary depending on the students that are being taught. The presentation methods would vary based on their maturity level and outside experiences with scientific principals and specifics. I would favor an approach that would present the students with evolutionary theory and evidence and would allow for a brief open dialogue about the creationism v. evolution debate with either the entire class or with only a select number of student or students specifically concerned with this issue. I would require that the class return to practicing evolutionary theory only during any lab investigation as recommended by Hewlett and  Peters (2006, p. 106). I would not favor an approach that would make a student feel marginalized for their religious beliefs, nor would I support a classroom discussion that would potentially result in this type of communication.

            This study does have some inherent bias as all research seemed to approach the topic from a western cultural viewpoint. In addition, no evidence was gathered to support the views held by creationists groups and proponents of intelligent design. Future research may be indicated to present the information from the creationists’ side of the debate. However, considerably more research was available to support evolutionary theory in the classroom.

            I can certainly relate to the issue of presenting evolution to students in a non-threatening and culturally responsive manner. As a future science educator I will more than likely be responsible for providing this kind of education to students in my own classroom. During my practicum experience I taught a lesson about the fossil evidence for evolution. During my lesson planning I was very cognizant of the potential issues of presenting information relating to evolutionary theory. Now that I have a greater understanding of evolutionary theory and its importance in science education I can see how educators can shape the way in which their students respond to the information that they present about education. An instructor with a bad attitude about evolution could pass along their own bias to the students they are teaching.

            Clearly evolution is an essential piece of the scientific puzzle. Even if students reject the theory of evolution as long as they are able to grasp the concepts they will have gleaned the information needed to continue and become successful in their scientific studies. The primary goal of teachers in this position should be to expose students to these ideas and support them in discovering how these theories affect them and their understanding of nature and the environment.

Further research could be called for in the form of a comparative analysis of teacher’s bias toward or against evolution compared to student test scores. I would theorize that teachers who were opposed to evolution may have students with lower test scores on a standardized test on evolutionary theory. The effect of the bias could be tested to determine what degree of bias the teacher has and the level of openness the teacher exhibits in sharing these beliefs. Students could be tested on both attitudinal surveys as well as on a standardized test of knowledge about evolution. In countries where national standards for education are adopted additional research could also be done to see if  this has had an impact, positive or negative, or student performance. Cross-cultural studies may provide researchers with more information about the issue of evolution in other nations besides our own.

America was founded on the basic principles of freedom of speech and the separation of church and state, amongst others. However, in our modern society we are still being influenced by inflexible religious ideation. As long as control of the educational standards rests in the hands of individual states students in certain areas will suffer a substandard education. As the election approaches one can only hope that our nation’s new president will usher in an era of educational progress. Hopefully, if states fail to provide students the education that they need the federal government will step in and create national standards that all states must abide by in addition to their own.

Undoubtedly, the debate over evolution in the classroom will continue to rage for the foreseeable future. It is essential that science teachers be united in presenting the best possible information about evolution to their students. Schools should not tolerate instructors who wish to turn their classroom into a bible study. Nor should students be required to have their spiritual views marginalized by educators who do not hold value in religion. Introducing the subject of evolution successfully requires that all parties, instructors included, approach the subject with an open mind and a willingness to consider the world from a different perspective. If we are successful, perhaps we will all leave with a better understanding of ourselves and our role in the world.

References

Annas, G. J. (2006).  Intelligent judging: Evolution in the classroom and the courtroom. The New England Journal of Medicine, 354(21), 2277-2281.

Attie, A. D., Sober, E., Numbers, R. L., Amasino, R. M., Cox, B., Berceau, T., et al. (2006). Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action. The Journal of Clinical Investigation, 116(5), 1134-1138.

Besterman, H., & Baggott la Velle, L. (2007).  Using human evolution to teach evolutionary theory. Journal of Biological Education, 41(2), 76-81.

Bleckmann, C. A. (2006).  Evolution and creationism in science: 1880-2000. BioScience, 56(2), 151-158.

Bybee, R. W. (2001). Teaching about evolution: Old controversy, new challenges. BioScience, 51(4), 309-312.

Cleaves, A., & Toplis, R. (2007). In the shadow of Intelligent Design: The teaching of evolution. Journal of Biological Education, 42(1), 30-35.

Culotta, E., & Pennisi, E. (2005). Evolution in action. Science, 310, 1878-1879

Henderson, B. (2006). The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. New York: Villard.

Henderson, J. R. (2007). Teaching evolution to creationists. Sociological Viewpoints, 23, 73-84.

Hewlett, M., & Peters, T. (2006). Evolution in our schools: What should we teach? Dialog: A Journal of Theology, 45(1), 106-109.

Hlodan, O. (2005). Exploring issues in evolutionary science and society. BioScience, 55(3), 198-200.

Lerner, L. S. (2000). Good science, bad science: Teaching evolution in the states. Washington D. C.: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

Magat, R. (2006).  The forgotten roles of two New York City teachers in the epic Scopes trial. Science & Society, 70(4), 541–549.

Moore, R. (2002). Teaching evolution: Do state standards matter? Bioscience, 52(4), 378-381.

Moore, R., Jensen, M., & Hatch, J. (2003). Twenty questions: What have the courts said about the teaching of evolution and creationism in public schools? BioScience, 53(8), 766-771.

Overton, W.R. (1982). The talk: Origins archive, Retrieved May, 14, 2008, from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html.

Peshkin, M. (2006). Addressing the public about science and religion. Physics Today, 59(7), 46-47.

Pierce, C. (2007). Designing intelligent knowledge: Epistemological faith and the democratization of science. Educational Theory, 57(2), 123-140.

Project 2061. Retrieved May 5, 2008, http://www.project2061.org/about/default.htm

Rees, P.A. (2007). The evolution of textbook misconceptions about Darwin. Journal of Biological Education, 41(2), 53-55.

Reiss, M. J. (2008). Creationism, Darwinism and ID: what are biology teachers supposed to do? Biologist, 55(1), 28-32.

Ross, M.R. (2005). Who believes what? Clearing up confusion over intelligent design and young-earth creationism. Journal Of Geoscience Education, 53(3): 319-323.

Paul, J. (1998). Evolution and the living god. In T. Peters (Ed. ). Science and Theology: The New Consonance (pp. 149-152) Boulder: Westview Press.

Universit of California at Berkely. (2008). Understanding Evolution Website.  Retrieved May, 14, 2008, from http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html.