Religious doctrine in U.S. public school science classes: An on-going and costly debate.
Context and Rationale: Since the teaching of evolution in American public schools met its first
legal challenge in the Scopes monkey trial of 1925 (Scopes v. Tennessee, 1927; Linder, 2008), an
on-going debate has ensued over the manufactured controversy as to whether theories of
creationism—also called creation science, intelligent design (ID), and evidence against
evolution—can legally be taught in United States science classes. Despite the weight of scientific
evidence, empirical argument, government policy, and established legal precedent, attempts to
deliver creationism continue in American science curricula (NCSE, 2012, 2013a, 2103b, 2013c).
Apple (2008) explored the evolution versus creationism debate in U.S. education, examining its
political context and the destructive nature of its continuance. He warned that without a strategic
method of progressing the debate, there would likely be serious consequences for American
education, resulting in parents withdrawing their children from public schools to avoid
confrontation with a contradictory worldview. To move the debate forward, the importance of
acknowledging a theistic worldview is supported by the ethnographic research of David Long
(2010a, 2010b, 2011, 2012). Long (2011) argued that accepting evolution as fact could have far
greater implications than altering, for example, a political stance. It would be a paradigmatic
shift in worldview.
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to both examine why attempts are still made to teach
Christian doctrine in United States public school science curricula (Kitzmiller v. Dover, 2005)
and identify implications for administrators.
Theoretical Framework: Conceptual framing of this research will be guided by a hermeneutic
analysis (Patton, 2002). This will provide the structure to investigate creationist belief—as
proposed by advocates—via a product (documentation), which makes it possible to interpret its
meanings. A hermeneutic analysis including content and context analytic approaches (Miller &
Alvarado, 2005) is extremely pertinent with regard to arguments for including creationist
doctrine in American science curricula, based upon cultural perspectives of a belief system.
United States Supreme Court testimony will be analysed for its content (content analytic), whilst
judicial opinion will be explored in terms of commentary (context analytic).
Methodology and Method: This research collects and analyzes publically available
documentation as an unobtrusive means of data collection in an already controversial arena.
Recommended by Berg (2001), document analysis focussing on publicly available expert witness
testimony, from scientists, theologians and school administrators—delivered under oath—
provides an accurate a source of data collection.
Findings and Conclusions: The data collection phase will be completed prior to this conference
(November 2013 to February 2014) and initial interpretations of the rationale for promoting
creationist doctrine in U.S. science classes will be presented.
Significance to the Field: This research directly addresses the conference questions, to what
degree ought the implementation of centralized education policy in the shape of the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, override local cultural and ethical concerns grounded in the
context of place? And, in what ways do (or ought?) school administrators react when faced with
situations where ethical and cultural values conflict with established law?
References
Apple, M. (2008). Evolution versus creationism in education. Educational Policy, 22(2), 327–
335. doi: 10.1177/0895904807312466
Berg, B. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. (4th ed.). Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Berkman, B. & Plutzer, E. (2011). Defeating creationism in the courtroom, but not in the
classroom. Science, 331(6016), 404–405. doi: 10.1126/science.1198902. Supporting
online material retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2011/01/24/331.
6016.404.DC1/Berkman.SOM.pdf
Davis, P., & Kenyon, D. (1993). Of pandas and people: The central question of biological
origins. (2nd ed.). Richardson, Texas: Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE).
Donnelly, L. & Boone, W. (2007). Biology teachers’ attitudes toward and use of Indiana’s
evolution standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(2), 236–257. doi:
10.1002/tea.20150
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, No. 04cv2688, 2005 U.S. Dist. (M.D. Pa. 2005).
Retrieved from http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/jones/04v2688d.pdf.
Linder, D. (2008). Tennessee vs. John Scopes: The monkey trial. Famous trials in American
history. Retrieved from http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm
Long, D. (2010a). Scientists at play in a field of the Lord. Cultural Studies of Science Education,
5(1), 213–235. doi: 10.1007/s11422-009-9249-7
Long, D. (2010b). Science, religion and difficult dialectics. Cultural Studies of Science
Education, 5(1), 257–261. doi: 10.1007/s11422-009-9253-y
Long, D. (2011). Evolution and religion in American education: An ethnography. In K. Tobin &
C. Milne (Eds.), Cultural Studies of Science Education: Vol. 4. Dordrecht: Springer.
Long, D. (2012). The politics of teaching evolution, science education standards, and being a
creationist. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 122–139. doi:
10.1002/tea.20445
Miller, F. & Alvarado, K. (2005). Incorporating documents into qualitative nursing research.
Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 37(4), 348–353.
Moore, R. (2000). The revival of creationism in the United States. Journal of Biological
Education, 35(1), 17–21. doi: 10.1080/00219266.2000.9655730
Moore, R. (2004). How well do biology teachers understand the legal issues associated with the
teaching of evolution? Bioscience, 54, 860–865. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0860:
HWDBTU]2.0.CO;2
National Center for Science Education (NCSE). (2012, November 26). "Intelligent design" bill
expected in Montana. Retrieved from http://ncse.com/news/2012/11/intelligent-designbill-expected-montana-0014641
National Center for Science Education (NCSE). (2013a, January 1). Montana bill mutates.
Retrieved from http://ncse.com/news/2013/01/montana-bill-mutates-0014668
National Center for Science Education (NCSE). (2013b, February 5). Montana's antievolution
bill tabled. Retrieved from http://ncse.com/news/2013/02/montanas-antievolution-billtabled-0014702
National Center for Science Education (NCSE). (2013c). News: Anti-evolution. Retrieved from
http://ncse.com/news/anti-evolution
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Scopes v. Tennessee, 289 S.W. 363, 154 Tenn. 105, 154 Tennessee 105 (1927).
Scott, E. & Branch, G. (Eds.), (2006). Not in our classrooms: Why intelligent design is wrong for
our schools. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.