Sarah Erlikh Paradigm Shift Paper

Creationism or Evolution? The Dilemma Remains Since the advent of philosophical thought, man has questioned the genesis of our existence. Before the enlightenment, society was accepting of a deity-based existence as the answer to all of lifes questions. In this belief, God created the world and everything in it in seven days. It wasnt until Darwins Origin of Species became popular among many scholars that people began to change their perspectives on the miracles of life. Before the discovery of DNA, Darwin argued that the visible similarities and slight differences between animals of the same species pointed to a hereditary connection for these animals, which he claimed was evidence of the species evolving from one form into another in response to environmental pressures. Darwins theories on the evolution of nature sparked a firestorm of debate that continues to rage today (Lofaso 1). Peoples extreme differences of opinion on this issue have caused a division in society for the past century. This division is deepened by the question of whether evolution should be taught in public schools. In fact, the debate that inevitably accompanies this question has been the basis of many political arguments, court cases, and changes in legislation. These arguments are indicative of a paradigm shift from a creation-based belief system in public education to an evolution-based one. As with many disagreements founded in a belief system, however, this debate is not over. In fact, in recent years, proponents of creationism have once again launched an assault on the teaching of evolution in schools. We are, quite possibly, in the midst of another paradigm shift. The history of the evolution/creation debate is long and complicated. Although Origin of Species was published as far back as 1859, in most states, educators were not allowed to teach the theory of evolution in public schools until a century later (Horder). In a country that is often

Sarah Erlikh Paradigm Shift Paper

characterized as strongly Christian, for many people, the theory of evolution was basically a form of heresy that they did not want their children exposed to. In fact, in response to a period of fundamentalist Christian fervor, some states adopted anti-evolution legislation in the 1920s (The Anti-Evolution Crusade of the 1920s). Some of these states, notably Tennessee and Arkansas, would eventually face legal challenges to these laws. The evolution debate was brought to national attention in 1925 with the case State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes, more commonly known as the Scopes Monkey Trial. This case clearly depicts the attitudes of people during the early 20th century. A professor and evolutionary activist by the name of John Scopes violated Tennessees Butler Act, which made it illegal to teach evolution in any state-funded institution. The Butler Act was, in fact, named for the laws advocate and head of the Worlds Christian Fundamentals Association, John Butler (Linder). Scopes was arrested and put on trial where he was represented by legendary defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, who was a known agnostic (Linder). The prosecution was led by William Jennings Bryan, a former candidate for the United States presidency and a fundamentalist Christian who argued that the word of God took priority over any scientific knowledge (Linder). Bryan believed that teaching evolutionary theory would lead to dangerous social movements and possibly even a revolution. In fact, he argued that the Bible must be interpreted literally because evolutionary theory was simply millions of guesses strung together (Linder). The men involved in this case were the physical embodiments of both sides of the evolution/creation debate. Needless to say, the examination and cross-examination of witnesses was vitriolic.

Sarah Erlikh Paradigm Shift Paper

The heated rhetoric of the trial brought unprecedented publicity to the long-lived debate. In fact, it was the first trial to be broadcast on national radio (Adams). In what was undeniably one of the trials of the century, Americans heard arguments based not only on scientific evidence, but also raising issues of how creationism conflicted with the ideas of non-Christian faiths and freedoms of religion and speech guaranteed in the Constitution. In many respects, this may have been the first time many Americans were introduced to concepts outside of their inherited beliefs. Eventually, due to the judges decision that certain evidence was not admissible, the jury was forced to find Scopes guilty to force the case to an appeals court. Scopes was fined one hundred dollars for his unlawful act. The Scopes case highlights the impact of a paradigm shift on American society, specifically, the shift caused by the effects of World War I. As a result of the extreme violence and inhumanity of the War to End All Wars, many people were disillusioned and had lost their faith in God. They believed that no just deity would ever make people suffer the way trench warfare had done. Conversely, some people turned to religion to help them cope with the fallout of the war. People clung to the idea that they would see their departed loved ones in heaven, or that God had a plan for them that justified losing their limbs or suffering shellshock. This division between believers and non-believers played out on the national stage in the Scopes trial. While the Scopes trial was the first time that school curriculum focused on the topic of existence was questioned, it was not the last. After Scopes conviction, many other states debated or adopted anti-evolution laws such as Mississippi and Arkansas (Elsberry).As the century progressed, however, the undeniable power of science began to change peoples attitudes. Inventions like the nuclear bomb and Sputnik granted science more believability in the eyes of

Sarah Erlikh Paradigm Shift Paper many people. In fact, the 1950s and 1960s are commonly known as the Atomic Age and Space Age, respectively, because they are so strongly associated with those scientific explorations (50th Anniversary of the Space Age). The next legal challenge to teaching evolution came in 1968 with the case Epperson v. Arkansas. In 1928, the Arkansas state legislature passed a statute prohibiting the teaching of evolutionary theory or using textbooks that include its ideas (Shaver). For the 1965-1966 school year, Arkansas school officials assigned teachers to use a textbook that included a section on Darwin and biology, despite the fact that this was in defiance of the law. A tenth-grade public school biology teacher, Susan Epperson, agreed to teach out of this textbook, sparking a constitutional challenge to the anti-evolution law. The challenge was based on the idea that the law required teachers to instruct students in a belief that was religiously grounded, violating the First Amendment to the Constitutions guarantee of freedom of speech. While the Arkansas State Supreme Court upheld the law, in a unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court held that the states control over curriculum did not include the right to remove secular material, and that laws prohibiting teaching evolution unfairly protected one religions views (Lofaso 12). This landmark case dealt a serious blow to proponents of creationism. At this point, advocates of creationism began working toward laws that would force the teaching of creationism along with evolution or have teachers present evolution as just one theory that could explain biology. This case may have been grounded in a psychological stressor similar to that of the Scopes trials connection to World War I. 1968 was not only during the period of the Cold War, which included such traumatic events as the Cuban Missile Crisis, but it was also during the

Sarah Erlikh Paradigm Shift Paper

period of the Civil Rights Movement. The struggle for civil rights divided the nation along lines similar to those of the creation/evolution divide: race, class, socioeconomic background, and geographical location. In that respect, it echoed the paradigm shift in beliefs that was dividing the country at that time. In 1982, the constitutionality of teaching creationism was again challenged. In the case of McLean v. the State of Arkansas, a lawsuit filed by parents, religious groups, and interested organizations questioned a state law known as Act 590, which mandated equal treatment of creation science and evolution science in public classrooms (Lofaso 13). District Court Judge William R. Overton ruled that the Act was unconstitutional since it violated the First Amendment. Because creationism only focused on one specific idea and constituted a religious doctrine rather than a scientific theory, it violated peoples freedom of religion. Therefore, Act 590 was repealed (Lofaso 13). The real shift did not happen until five years later, when the question of whether creationism is a justifiable science and should be taught in public schools reached the Supreme Court. In the case of Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court held that the state of Louisianas Balanced Treatment Act was unconstitutional because its primary purpose was the promotion of a particular religious belief, not all religious beliefs. The Court concluded that the Act restricts academic freedom by putting conditions on the teaching of evolution and counterbalancing them with ideas of creationism. The Supreme Courts decision essentially nullified every act balancing the teaching of religious creationism with evolutionary science. This was the first time that the teaching of evolution in the classroom was preferred over the teaching of creationism (Lofaso 14).

Sarah Erlikh Paradigm Shift Paper

This shift had a profound impact. Statistics show that by the 1990s the country was essentially split in half: 48% of people were creationists while 52% were evolutionist (Newport). Since it was now illegal to preferentially teach creationism, younger generations were being educated in evolutionary theory. As a result, the number of people that believed in evolution was drastically increasing. Of course, this was also happening at a time when science had entered the public mind and daily life in a way that had not ever been true before. By the 1990s, almost everyone had a personal computer and connection to the Internet. Science had located the virus that caused HIV/AIDS, and was working toward treatments for that disease as well as many cancers. Satellites were regularly sent to space, where we had already walked on the moon and were building a space station. The paradigm shift from a creationist-based to an evolutionist-based classroom developed over a period of sixty years. However, the shift has not ended. With the onset of the new century came a new movement revisiting the same creation/evolution debate, this time called intelligent design (Lofaso 15). The modern intelligent design movement saw its origins at approximately the same time as Edward v. Aguillard was decided. It was created in response to evolutionary theory by a group of lawyers, theologians, philosophers, and scientists, who believed that the theory of evolution inadequately explains some of natures complex miracles. The movements supporters strongly reassure people in their pamphlets, books, and manuscripts that intelligent design is distinct from the theory of creationism. The theory of intelligent design is only an effort to analytically detect whether the miraculous design of all nature is based on a genuine design or is the product of undirected probability. It claims to be based not on religious texts but rather on empirical evidence based on the scientific method (Intelligent Design).

Sarah Erlikh Paradigm Shift Paper

The intelligent design movement began to grow in political strength in early 2000 when approximately 19 states were inspired by its proponents and considered challenging the teaching of evolution in secondary schools. The Kansas board of Education was the first to eliminate the teachings of macroevolution, speciation, and the Big Bang theory from its states educational curriculum. Although by 2001 the state reversed itself, recently, the Board of Education approved new educational standards that cast doubt on Darwins theories and allow for the exploration of supernatural causes (Lofaso 16). In that same year, Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania introduced an amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act stating that where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why the subject generates so much continuing controversy (Lofaso 16). The Supreme Court rejected Santorums amendment and opposed the teaching of intelligent design in classrooms. This did not stop the ever-increasing strength of the intelligent design movement across the nation. In June of 2004, the School Board of the Dover Area School District in Pennsylvania dismissed a textbook that taught Darwinian evolution. The Board stated that they only way they would approve the textbook was if the book Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins was also approved as a supplemental textbook. Administrators wanted to introduce the theory of intelligent design into the classroom as a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. In December of 2004, 11 parents filed a lawsuit against the school district in federal court (Matzke). The case of Kitzmiller et al v. Dover Area School District was named one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial (Associated Press). United States District Judge John E. Jones attacked the Dover Area School District

Sarah Erlikh Paradigm Shift Paper

explaining that the insertion of intelligent design into the school curriculum was a violation of the separation of church and state and was unconstitutional. He stated that the concept is creationism in disguise and the purpose of its implementation was to promote religion in public school (Associated Press). The following year, eight school board members who supported intelligent design were voted out of office, and Senator Santorum changed his position stating that he did not believe intelligent design should be taught in public classrooms (Lofaso 17). Pennsylvania has not been the only state that has begun to shift back to anti-evolution biology curricula. In fact, states like Indiana and Alabama are far more extreme. Just last year, a bill was passed by the Indiana Senate making it legal to teach creationism along with evolution in science classrooms. Indiana Speaker of the House Brian Bosma killed the Senate bill to avoid a costly lawsuit for the state. Similarly, the state of Alabama, one of the most creationist states in the country, recently introduced House Bill 133 which states that public school students can receive credits for religious instruction as long as the instruction does not take place on school grounds and the school does not provide transportation for the lessons (Word Press). Needless to say, this bill would provide a way for creationism to be taught instead of evolution. In fact, this bill is likely to be viewed as an illegal implementation of religion into public schools because it violates the Constitutional separation of church and state. Each step in the creation/evolution debate in America is connected to larger questions about faith and God. For this reason, there will likely never be a complete resolution to this debate. However, by looking at the important periods in the history of this discussion, it is possible to identify some broader issues about Americans and their cultural identity. During times of war and other stressors, people seem to bring up the creationism question again, perhaps

Sarah Erlikh Paradigm Shift Paper

as an expression of their own growing faith or their concern for the immortal souls of their fellow Americans. Of course, not all people believe the same religious tenets or even hold religious beliefs, so questioning the appropriateness of including creationism in a school curriculum will continue to occur. In all, one of the most basic rights of Americans is the ability to question authority and to speak out about what they believe in, and the debate over teaching evolution has certainly shown that Americans take this right seriously.

Sarah Erlikh Paradigm Shift Paper

Works Cited Adams, Noah. "Timeline: Remembering the Scopes Monkey Trial." Timeline: Remembering the Scopes Monkey Trial. N.p., 5 July 2005. Web. 16 Nov. 2012. <http://www.npr.org/2005/07/05/4723956/timeline-remembering-the-scopes-monkeytrial>. "The Antievolution Crusade of the 1920s." The Antievolution Crusade of the 1920s. Counter Balance, n.d. Web. 16 Nov. 2012. <http://www.counterbalance.org/history/creat1920frame.html>. Associated Press. "Judge Rules against "Intelligent Design"m." N.p., 20 Dec. 2005. Web. 16 Nov. 2012. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/ns/technology_and_sciencescience/t/judge-rules-against-intelligent-design/#.UKuKNYc0WSp>. Elsberry, Wesley R. "Anti- Evolution and the Law." Anti- Evolution and the Law. N.p., 3 Apr. 2001. Web. 16 Nov. 2012. <http://www.antievolution.org/topics/law/>. "50th Anniversary of the Space Age." National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 24 Oct. 2007. Web. 15 Nov. 2012. <http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/SpaceAge/>. Horder, Katy. "Charles Darwin & Evolution." Charles Darwin & Evolution. N.p., 2009. Web. 19 Nov. 2012. <http://www.christs.cam.ac.uk/darwin200/pages/index.php?page_id=e6>. "Intelligent Design." Intelligent Design. Discovery Institute, n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. <http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php>. Linder, Douglas O. "An Introduction to the John Scopes (Monkey) Trial." An Introduction to the John Scopes (Monkey) Trial. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Nov. 2012. <http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/evolut.htm>.

Sarah Erlikh Paradigm Shift Paper

Lofaso, Anne Marie. "The Constitutional Debate Over Teaching Intelligent Design as Science in Public Schools." American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (2005): 1-24. Print. Matzke, Nicholas J. "Design on Trial in Dover, Pennsylvania." Design on Trial in Dover, Pennsylvania NCSE. NCSE Public Information Project Specialist, n.d. Web. 15 Nov. 2012. <http://ncse.com/rncse/24/5/design-trial-dover-pennsylvania>. Newport, Frank. "Four in 10 Americans Believe in Strict Creationism." Four in 10 Americans Believe in Strict Creationism. N.p., 17 Dec. 2010. Web. 16 Nov. 2012. <http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/four-americans-believe-strict-creationism.aspx>. Word Press. "Why Evolution Is True." Why Evolution Is True. N.p., 17 Feb. 2012. Web. 19 Nov. 2012. <http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/more-creationist-crazinessin-alabama-good-news-elsewhere/>.