Teaching the Theory of Evolution in a Public Classroom 1

Teaching the Theory of Evolution in a Public Classroom

Nicole E. Elliott
University of Maine at Augusta

Teaching the Theory of Evolution in a Public Classroom 2

Introduction
The Theory of Evolution has been a controversial topic ever since Charles Darwin published his book
Origin of Species in 1859. This theory is described as the process in which organisms change over time as a
result of changes in heritable physical traits or behavioral traits. It was then that teaching science drastically
changed. Shortly after the introduction of Darwins theory, it started to be published in textbooks and taught
in schools. These actions became tremendously controversial, and critics vocalize their concerns. The
standard argument of the anti-evolutionists was that is dispelled God, was considered unholy, and exclude
evolution and to include their religious views in school science programs (Bybee, 2001, p. 313). However, it
was not until 1925 that the controversy rose to a new level. It was then that the courts had become involved.
Since then it has not let up. Teaching the theory of evolution can be like walking on eggshells, in particular,
with certain communities and cultures.
The purpose of this investigation is to gain an understanding of how the controversy can impact a
classroom and ways that come educators approach it. Hopefully, my research will assist me in developing a
suitable way to teach this concept without offense but still educate students. Therefore, my research question
is how is the theory of evolution handled in a public classroom. My subquestions are: what are the policies
and procedures at (X) for teaching the theory of evolution, what constraints or conflicts, if any, does (X) face
in teaching this concept, to what extent do you think this theory should be taught, do you believe that
evolution and creationism should be co-taught, and do you believe evolution should be taught.

Teaching the Theory of Evolution in a Public Classroom 3

Review of Literature
The theory of evolution is a concept that has been a focal point of discussion for over one hundred
and fifty years. The theory is the process of how organisms change over time as a result of changes in
behavior or heritable physical traits. There has been substantial research conducted in regards to the theory
including, whether it belongs in a classroom, the extent of the concept, constraints, and conflicts, and if it
should be co-taught with the creation and intelligent design. Though the research is vast, there seems to be a
common theme amongst it, which this review will cover. I will be investigating the teaching of the theory and
not the other aspects I named above.
Before delving into the literature, there is a need for some background knowledge for understanding
the controversy surrounding the teaching of the theory of evolution. The largest hurdle in the controversy is
the First Amendment of the Constitution. There tends to be a conflict among freedom of religion, the
establishment clause, and freedom of speech. The establishment and free exercise clause are important
factors because together it states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof These clauses accompanied by the free speech clause would,
assumingly, seal the argument about teaching evolution in a classroom. However, creationists do have one
aspect of the Constitution working in their favor: the freedom of religion. The argument is that because there
is a freedom of religion in the United States that enforcing the theory of evolution violates a persons
freedom of religion. The second legal aspect of this controversy is the Lemon Test, which is a three-pronged
assessment regarding legislation concerning religion. It states; 1. The statute must not result in an excessive
government entanglement with religious affairs. 2. The statute must no advance nor inhibit religious
practice. 3. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose and if any of these prongs is violated, then the
law is deemed unconstitutional (Armenta & Lane, 2010, p. 77).
While reading through the literature, a common theme of historical court cases became prevalent.
The center issue in the cases was anti-evolution laws, reading of disclaimers to students, and textbook
censorship. The first and most infamous trial was the Scopes Trial of 1925. This trial was about a high school
biology teacher, John Scopes, who was charged with violating a state anti-evolution law by teaching students
about evolution (Armenta & Lane, 2010, p. 77). The case resulted in Mr. Scopes being fined one hundred

Teaching the Theory of Evolution in a Public Classroom 4

dollars, but it's argued whether anyone actually won the trial because since then there have been several
more cases. Armenta and Lane detail these cases and their outcomes in their article about tracing the
evolution controversy. Some of the cases even made it to the U.S. Supreme Court, but regardless which court
the ruling was always the same, anti-evolution laws were unconstitutional according to the establishment and
free exercise clause but also failed the Lemon test (Armenta & Lane, 2010, p. 77). Other cases referred to
disclaimers that had to be given to students or placed in textbooks, a reference to intelligent design, and
textbook censorship. The judge that presided over the intelligent design hearing stated intelligent design
was a mere relabeling of creationism" (Armenta & Lane, 2010, p. 78). As for the disclaimers, they were ruled
as purely religious purposes, a sham, and violated the First Amendment resulting in them being removed
(Armenta & Lane, 2010, p. 78). The last case that Armenta and Lane (2010) never discussed made it to court.
There was a controversy involving Texas, textbook publishers, and the theory. The publishers would send
their new editions to various schools in Texas, since the state was their biggest buyer, and would receive
feedback on the books. However, since Texas was a state that was anti-evolution, it resulted in censorship of
the books. The conflicting parties eventually agreed that evolution could be in the books but students will
examine all sides of scientific evidence (Armenta & Lane, 2010, p. 79).
In 2007, there was a study that asked college students about their beliefs and experiences in high
school regarding evolution, creationism, and intelligent design. The sample from the study was nonrandom
students enrolled in eight different public universities which concluded with 972 respondents who
completed the entire survey (Bowman, 2007, p. 322). This study compared to state standards, red and blue
states, and geographic regions. The states in which Bowman (2007) sent the surveys to were: Arkansas,
California, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. She claimed that she selected
these states for comparative purposes. The findings were as follows: 92% of students reported having been
taught evolution, 62% not taught creation, 65% not taught intelligent design (Bowman, 2007, p. 349). As for
the spread between state standards, red and blue states, and geographic location; cultural factors have a
somewhat stronger connection to classroom instruction about evolution, creationism, and intelligent design
(Bowman, 2010, p. 380).

Teaching the Theory of Evolution in a Public Classroom 5

In another study, High School Biology Teachers Views on Teaching Evolution: Implications for Science
Teacher Educators by Ronald Hermann (2013), six teachers were interviewed about various aspects of
teaching evolution. The study looked at; student understanding of the subject, perception of controversy,
religious barriers, acceptance and belief, teaching approaches, and unlimited time and resources. The finding
was that students had an inadequate understanding of the concept because it is believed that the content was
too challenging, but after instruction student understanding increased (Hermann, 2013, p. 608). Also,
teachers perceived that evolution was a controversial topic even though there was no report of significant
challenges from parents or students (Herman, 2013, p. 608). The author suggested that a potential barrier
was that media coverage might have over dramatized the conflict. When it came to teaching approaches,
Hermann (2013) notes three distinct trends: avoidance of the topic, advocating for evolution, and neutrality
regarding the procedure (p. 609). Also, it was reported that religious beliefs were the most significant
barrier they perceived influencing students understanding of evolution also not one of the teachers stated
that they would incorporate or refine lessons to reduce barrier (Herman, 2013, p. 609). Regarding
acceptance and belief, the teachers felt uncomfortable introducing religious discussion for several different
reasons, such as;
a feeling of not being qualified enough to discuss religion, and unwillingness to discuss
religion, a lack fo understanding of the extent to which religion can be considered in a public
high school science classrooms, and an unwillingness to have to approach evolution
differently than any other science concepts or theories.
(Herman, 2013, p. 210).
He also notes that there are limitations to his study because there were six participants and they were from
two areas that do not have a history of challenging the teaching of this theory as high as other areas in the U.S.
(Herman, 2013, p. 610).
The last article outlines the controversy, however in a more opinionated and extremist sort of way.
Brownfield (2007) has a strong opinion on how evolution and creationism should be treated in a public
classroom, and she makes this very evident. Her paper goes through the court cases as discussed earlier,

Teaching the Theory of Evolution in a Public Classroom 6

other methods to suppress evolution education, and balanced treatment education. She does bring to light a
point;
Supreme Court jurisprudence deems anti-evolution legislation and balanced treatment
legislation, as an infringement of the rights guaranteed by the Establishment Clause, Free
Exercise Clause, and Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution. (Brownfield, 2007, p. 142)
Even after this stance by the Supreme Court is made clear, Brownfield (2007) reiterates many proponents of
creationism devise tactics that would circumvent the teaching of evolution in public schools (p. 142).
Throughout her paper, she makes her opinion very clear in the sense that,As long as the theory of
creationism is based on fundamental religious beliefs, it has no place in the public school system
(Brownfield, 2007, p. 146). However, her paper does not offer any new information that the earlier articles
mentioned and is not the only extreme opinion article. Bybee (2001), a recipient of the Education Award of
the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS), writes about the stance of AIBS and biology curriculum,
the controversy of evolution, and grappling with creationists on teaching the topic. He makes is blatantly
clear about his position when he refers to creationists as Proteus from Greek Mythology. Proteus was a sea
god that could metamorph at will, and Bybee (2001) compares him with creationists by stating; conflicts
with creationists have continuously taken various forms, and one can predict they will persist because their
protean changes have no ceased, and most likely will not (pp. 312-313). The rest of his article revisits court
cases and various attempts of censorship with his flagrant opinion thrown in.
Throughout the various research summarized here, common themes have arisen: censorship,
unconstitutional rulings on evolutionists behalf, and a possible sense of controversy. Having read opinions,
empirical research, teacher first-hand accounts, and historical implications of the theory of evolution in public
schools, it has intrigued me to the point of investigating how this topic is handled in my local school district.

Teaching the Theory of Evolution in a Public Classroom 7

Methodology
The intent of this study was to gain an understanding of how the theory of evolution is handled in a
public school system and the feelings toward the topic from a small but eclectic of educators, administrators,
and parents. Because the study is a small sample size and because the goal was to describe and document
unique responses, I employed a case study design with basic analytical methods. In addition to being a case
study, my study also qualifies as teacher research. I have looked into this particular topic because of being a
perspective life science teacher. As a future educator, I am deeply invested in understanding ways to
effectively educating my students without conflict. Because there was a connection to some of my
participants, I must monitor any biases that may impact the study. To do that, I engaged in reflexivity the
ability to look both inward at the self and outward to the forces that shape my research. Therefore, I
acknowledge by insider position by being acutely aware of my interests and values that may develop findings.
Concurrently, I also stepped out of my role as a scientist to look closely at the ways in which I was analyzing
and drawing conclusions. The reflexive stance aided me in monitoring my potential biases.
Because I wanted my research to inform my teaching, I chose to situate my study in a town where the
teachers and administrators were part of the same school district and parents of said school district. Ten
people were asked to participate; eight agreed. The distribution of sample appears in Table 1. Note that all
participants were given pseudonyms.

Table 1 Participant Sample

Pseudonym

Label

Grade Level

Warren

Admin

Middle School

Skynrd

Admin

High School

Franklin

Teacher

Middle School

Teaching the Theory of Evolution in a Public Classroom 8

Hodgkin

Teacher

Middle School

McClintlock

Teacher

High School

Henderson

Parent

N/A

Olsson

Parent

N/A

Ellis

Parent

N/A

All eight participants can identify as persons over the age of eighteen with some involvement in the school
system. Of the eight, three were parents with students in/or graduated from said school district. One of the
teachers was a sophomore biology teacher, whereas the other two were both seventh-grade life science
teachers. Also, out of the two administrators, one was a middle school principal, whereas the second was a
high school principal, both being the administrators to the teachers mentioned before.
I collected data from personal interviews with each of the participants. The data set for this study
included responses to five questions regarding the theory of evolution in a public school setting. All of the
data extracted from the interviews and written on a template created by me, which was stored in an envelope
and locked in my personal safe. Any identifying information was removed from the files and replaced with
pseudonyms. Participants real names will not be in any papers, reports, publications, or conference
presentations that may result from this study. The key linking participants names to data were destroyed
once analysis was complete. Any paper copy of de-identified data will be stored in my safe for five years, at
that time data will be shredded.
To analyze data, I used an inductive approach that began with an initial read to generate possible codes. In a
second read, to establish internal validity, these codes were applied and revised as required. Once a stable set
of codes were established, I developed a coding dictionary, and a depiction of the coding is can be seen in
Figure 1. Once descriptive coding of all the data was complete, I created a spreadsheet in which I tabulated
the frequency of each code. At the same time, I disaggregated the data into individual document files to
understand the patterns that were emerging from these data. To ensure validity, I triangulated the data by
cross-checking the various sources of data. All data were analyzed and compared to ensure that the data set

Teaching the Theory of Evolution in a Public Classroom 9

for each question was responsive to its relevant research question. Generalizability is not easy to apply in this
small research group. My intent was not to generalize my findings to a larger sample but was to help me
better understand approaching the theory of evolution in my future classroom. My goal, therefore, is to
produce a detailed report that will assist me as a teacher but that perhaps others will find useful for their
practices.

Teaching the Theory of Evolution in a Public Classroom 10

Figure 1 Coding

Teaching the Theory of Evolution in a Public Classroom 11

Results
The results I obtained will be described next. There will be quantitative graphs along with direct
quotes from the interviews.
In regards to question one, the policies and procedures, 75% of the responses were either no or I
do not know and of these responses they were all from the teachers and parents. The answers of the
administrators were curriculum based and Warren stated that The policies and procedures are that it is to
be taught as the approved curriculum of the school board committee. Within our school board, there is a set
committee that looks specifically at what is to be taught, and if they do not approve it then it is not to be
taught. Below