While such laws have been ruled unconstitutional, the opposition to evolution which stimulated their adoption continues as a prominent feature of American culture. Most such obstacles occur at the level of individual students or members of the public.
They can, at least in principle, be countered by standard types of education, whether in classrooms or outside them. Another class of obstacles, however, cannot be easily overcome by individual educators or through straightforward instruction. These are legal obstacles, which may take the form of laws or school board policies or regulations, often at the state level. Since about , attempts to eliminate, limit, or censor the teaching of evolution in the United States via legal mechanisms have taken a number of paths.
For an introduction to this topic, see Scott — , and for a more detailed historical treatment, see Larson Why should teachers be concerned about the history of antievolution legal efforts in the United States? After all, there are no longer any explicit prohibitions against teaching evolution. But such laws were still on the books in some states well within living memory. In addition, many of the social and cultural factors that led to laws against teaching evolution in the s have persisted and underlie the opposition to evolution that continues at many state and local levels today.
Moreover, teachers are generally underinformed about the pertinent legal issues Moore , which remain very relevant in any local conflict over teaching evolution. The well-known Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee Larson was the only significant legal challenge to any of these laws to reach the courts until the s. Armstrong quotes the first two sections of the Arkansas law enacted through the initiative process in That it shall be unlawful for any teacher or other instructor in any University, College, Normal, Public School, or other institution of the State, which is supported in whole or in part from public funds derived by State or local taxation to teach the Theory or Doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals and also it shall be unlawful for any teacher, textbook commission, or other authority exercising the power to select textbooks for above mentioned institution to adopt or use in any such institution a textbook that teaches the doctrine or theory that mankind descended or ascended from a lower order of animals.
Armstrong seems confident that evolution will continue to be presented in some fashion by many teachers in the affected states. He asks early in the article:. Does this mean that, from now on, all pupils of elementary and high schools and all college and university students in Arkansas will be graduated in complete ignorance of the evolution theory and of what it implies in connection with the origin of man? By no means.
Another teacher was planning to inform students that the material on certain specific pages of particular books was illegal due to the antievolution law, and so they would skip those pages. This strategy depended on a distinction between textbooks, clearly mentioned in the law, and reference books or other types, not so mentioned. A university professor suggested that he could tell students to consult reference books in the library to learn about evolution without breaking the law.
And of course students would still be free to purchase their own books about evolution, even to order them from out of state if necessary, for their own private use. In Tennessee, the law under which John T. Scopes was convicted prohibited teaching human evolution, without mentioning textbooks. Arkansas U. We may not have advanced as far from the days of banning evolution as we would like to believe.
But the courage of teachers who have stood up for the integrity of science education—like Scopes; like those interviewed by Armstrong, who sought to evade the strictures of what they regarded as a law motivated by ignorance; like Epperson, who agreed to challenge the Arkansas law in court in ; and like the teachers in Dover, Pennsylvania, who refused to read the pro-intelligent design and antievolution disclaimer mandated by their school board in —should give us hope for the future.
In Kitzmiller v. Dover F. The new standards require that students be able to explain how a species evolves through the evolutionary process of natural selection. In , the Ohio Board of Education was asked to adopt intelligent design as part of its standard biology curriculum by proponents of intelligent design.
Later that year, the Board adopted a proposal that required critical analysis of evolution in classrooms but did not mention intelligent design specifically. In , the decision was reversed. In October , the Dover school board inserted a disclaimer that included brief instruction in intelligent design. A group of parents led by the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the school board and a federal judge ruled in favor of the parents in Tennessee passed a law in stating that the teaching of some scientific subjects, including evolution, can cause controversy and that teachers can help students understand, analyze, and critique existing scientific theories.
Critics say that the law could enable the teaching of creationism. Wisconsin public schools are required by state law to teach evolution, but districts may determine the specifics of their own science curricula. In , the Grantsburg school board became the first in the U.
This policy does not call for the teaching of creationism or intelligent design. The Theory of Evolution has two main points: All life on Earth is connected and related to each other The diversity of life on Earth is the result of modifications of a population by natural selection Evolution is one of the best-substantiated theories in science, supported by several scientific disciplines such as geology, paleontology, genetics, and developmental biology.
Teaching Evolution Controversy Teaching evolutionary has caused plenty of controversy among U. Teaching of Evolution in the States Several U. Florida On February 19, , the Florida State Board of Education adopted new science standards that explicitly require the teaching of evolution in public schools.
Georgia In , Cobb County placed stickers on biology textbooks instructing students that evolution is a theory and not a fact after over 2, parents signed a petition complaining that alternative theories to evolution were not being taught in public schools. Kansas Since , the Kansas Board of Education has rewritten its science guidelines several times In February , the board voted to remove language from the science curriculum that questioned the theory of evolution.
Michigan In , the Michigan Board of Education voted to pass new science standards that ensured the teaching of evolution but not of intelligent design or creationism. A state, district or school cannot ban evolution, require equal time for creationism, or require a disclaimer on evolution. An individual teacher cannot teach creationism or creation science "freelance. If you are a teacher, and you have any questions about these "cans and can'ts" feel free to check with me or your local school district counsel.
Remember our students deserve the best possible science education, which ultimately depends on you and your colleagues. Make a Donation Today. Give a Gift Membership. More Ways to Give. Member Services FAQs. Legacy Society. Science Champions Society. Give a Gift of Stock. Donor-Advised Funds. Employer Matching Gifts. Facebook Fundraisers. Free Memberships for Graduate Students. Teaching Resources. Misconception of the Month. Coronavirus Resources.
Browse articles by topic. Community Outreach Resources. What We're Monitoring. About NCSE. Our History. Our People. Our Financials. Annual Reports.
0コメント