Guest Editorial by Steven Randak
The Children's Crusade for Creationism
The American Biology Teacher, April 2001, pp. 226-230
The nightmare of every biology teacher happened at our school.
Creationists petitioned the school board to have creation science
added to the biology curriculum. The outcome was mixed.
Why did it happen at Jefferson High School, Lafayette Indiana,
in the shadow of Purdue University? It seems reasonable to assume
that if you are not teaching evolution, you greatly reduce your
chances of a confrontation to nearly zero. As you increase the
time spent on evolution and the effectiveness of your instruction,
the risk of creationist intervention should logically increase.
After an introductory unit on the nature of science, we teach
one semester of ecology and one semester of evolution, with genetics
and the cell included in evolution. John Moore's deductions of
evolution are the skeleton upon which we build the second semester's
study (Moore 1993). In addition to teaching the big ideas in
biology, we spend considerable time teaching life skills with
goal setting, group learning, student choice, and oral testing.
We use several tools that increase the chance that the 80% of
the time spent in labs will result in critical thinking skills
development. Because the class is team taught, student centered,
and constructivist , students tend to enjoy it and they learn
2000). These factors work together to create an environment
that stresses students with creationist beliefs. To relieve that
stress we teach a comprehensive 5 week introductory unit on the
nature of science. It includes not only the scientific method
but a consideration of how science is distinguished from nonscience
and a condensed history of science. The commitment to developing
a deep understanding of the nature of science comes, in part,
from our involvement with a NSF sponsored ENSI program (ENSI
2000). The ENSI philosophy assumes that if students develop an
understanding of what science is and how you distinguish science
from nonscience, they will have fewer problems when confronted
with evolution (Nickels et al 1996). In the past
it worked. This time it didn't. Why?
The mystery further deepens when you consider that the entire
initiative to add creationism to the curriculum was student driven.
No adult took an obvious role. We know from talking with students
that one of our chemistry teachers offers a great deal of support
for the creationist view. It seems possible and even likely that
the petition was his idea. In the past, he spent the first several
weeks of school preaching the creationist dogma, but appeared
to have stopped because of administrative pressure. He has recently
started preaching in his classroom again. The guidance of this
one adult may be the reason this creationist action happened
or it may truly be a student response to effectively taught evolution.
Our superintendent holds this latter opinion. He feels that creationist
parents and students are upset because we teach evolution effectively.
Why it happened remains unclear but what happened is vividly
clear. The school's Christian club served as the spring board.
These students organized and obtained hundreds of students signatures
and dozens of faculty signatures on a petition requesting creation
science be added to the biology curriculum . We found that even
among faculty the argument, "It is only fair that both sides
be presented," was very compelling. Even two of our 16 science
staff signed the petition. The chemistry teacher's signature
was missing. Most of the students and adults that signed do not
understand that science has little to do with the playground
idea of fairness. They fail to understand science is a competition
of ideas where the strength of the supporting evidence determines
which idea is accepted. We spent considerable time falsifying
creationist arguments both with individual students and small
groups. An interesting aspect of refuting creation "science"
is that students holding that belief take your criticism as an
attack on their religion and not as an attack on a scientific
idea. To quote one student, "It is bad enough that you teach
the earth is old, you should not be able to attack my evidence
that the earth is young." Many of the students, when they
felt their faith or faithfulness was under siege, threw out the
rational mind and critical thought and regressed to knee jerk
mantras such as "evolution is a religion," or "it
is only a theory." To a teacher it is humbling to see students
in the midst of gaining critical thinking skills regress to mindless
chanting of such worthless drivel.
On the plus side, it energized all our students. We had more
interest in the study of evolution and higher unit grades than
ever before from a class that is not our strongest. As you might
expect, the local paper's editorial section was also energized
on the issue for months. Around the time they petitioned the
school board there was a media frenzy.
What is most encouraging about this story is the way our school
corporation responded. The superintendent immediately stated
to us his support for our curriculum and kept us informed of
his actions. The biology staff mutually decided to maintain a
low profile in the media. Our department head bravely gave the
one newspaper interview, which resulted in the predictable misquotes.
The superintendent educated the school board about the nature
of science and the law and with the help of the science department
head convinced the one wavering board member . The students were
respectfully treated by the administration and the school board.
At the public school board meeting, under the glare of local
and national television lights, they were politely told that
the curriculum would not be altered. It all worked the way a
science educator would hope. Where is the mixed outcome mentioned
in the introductory paragraph?
When things calmed down and I had some free time, I called Eugenie
Scott of the National
Center for Science Education (1-800-290-6006). She is the
first person I would call if you have problems with creationists.
I was curious how our experience fit into the larger picture.
What she told me was a shock. I assumed that student- led crusades
for creation science were common. They are not. I assumed that
school boards and superintendents often do the right thing. They
do not. I was told that our situation was the ideal, not the
norm and at that moment, I experienced more concern than any
time during the many months of controversy.
Children crusading for creation science or intelligent design
in the name of fair play is a compelling idea. If the tactic
is used in school corporations less ideal than ours, it will
surely meet with success and science education will suffer.
ENSI - Evolution and the Nature of Science Institute (2000).
Moore, J.A. (1993). Science As A Way of Knowing. Cambridge,
MA; Harvard University Press.
Nickels, M. K., Nelson, C. E. & Beard, J. (1996). "Better
Biology Teaching by Emphasizing
Evolution & the Nature of Science". The American
Biology Teacher, 58(6), pp. 332 - 336
Randak, S. H. (2000). Randak 2000
Jefferson High School
Lafayette, IN 47905