Teaching the
Controversy: What's Legal?
Accompanies the
Viewer's Guide, Chapter 7-C, "Controversy in a Public High School"
and Chapter 7-D, "The Lafayette School Board"
Overview
All too often, controversial
subjects are marked by an abundance of sound bites and a relative
dearth of substantive, carefully reasoned debate. That's understandable,
considering the public's demand for cogent, quickly digestible information.
But saying that this is understandable is not the same as saying
that it's good. Sound bites are a very poor basis for understanding
important issues--or making important decisions.
In this exercise, students
will be asked to dig deeper on the constitutional issues related
to teaching origins in public-school classrooms.
Learning Objectives
- Students will be
able to describe some key scientific criticisms of Darwinism.
- Students will be
able to assess whether presenting criticisms of Darwinism in public
school classrooms violates the First Amendment.
- Students will be
able to describe some core concepts of Intelligent Design theory
and assess whether they are scientific or religious.
- Students will be
able to assess whether presenting Intelligent Design in public
school classrooms violates the First Amendment.
Directions
Go over the following
handout with the students. Give them a due date that works best
with your schedule, taking into account your students' abilities.
If you wish, when the students have completed their reports, set
aside a class session for a class discussion/debate on the following
questions:
- From what you've
learned in doing your reports, were Mr. Spokes's plans to teach
the origins controversy legally sound?
- Why or why not?
Teaching the Controversy:
What's Legal?
All too often, controversial
subjects are marked by too many sound bites and too few thoughtful
arguments. That's not surprising, given the public's demand for
dramatic, quickly digestible information. But is that a good way
to understand important issues? Are sound bites a good basis for
making important decisions?
In this assignment,
you will get the chance to dig deeper on the question of how the
origins controversy should be taught in the public schools. In
an article titled, "Teaching the Origins Controversy"
(see list of sources), the article's authors describe a fictitious
science teacher who wants to make some changes in the way he teachers
evolution in his classroom. The science teacher, John Spokes,
wants to:
- 1) Correct
blatant factual errors in his textbook that overstate the evidential
case for neo-Darwinism.
- 2) Tell students
about the evidential challenges to these theories that current
textbooks fail to mention.
- 3) Define the
term "evolution" without equivocation and to distinguish
clearly between those senses of the term that enjoy widespread
support among scientists and those that remain controversial,
even if only among a minority of scientists.
- 4) Tell his
students that a growing minority of scientists do see evidence
of real, not just apparent, design in biological systems.
Using the article and
the other sources listed at the end of this handout, write a report
that answers the following questions:
Is It Science? Are Spokes's intended changes in his biology
curriculum scientific? Is his plan to correct and critique textbook
presentations of neo-Darwinism scientific? Are the alternative
theories that Spokes wants to present (including the theory of
intelligent design) scientific?
Is It Religion? Does Spokes's plan to correct and critique
textbook presentations of neo-Darwinism constitute an establishment
of religion? Does Spokes's plan to expose his students to evidence
of design and design theory qualify as teaching religion? Does
the First Amendment prevent the presentation of this point of
view?
Is It Speech? Are Spokes's plans to correct and critique
textbook presentations of neo-Darwinism, and to expose students
to the alternative theory of intelligent design, protected under
the First Amendment?
Sources
Use the following
sources to answer the questions for this report. If you wish,
you may also read through some of the United States Supreme
Court decisions mentioned in these sources. A good place to
find the text of these decisions is at www.findlaw.org. When
you go to the site, enter the name of the case in the top left-hand
text box, using all uppercase letters, except for the "v".
For example, if you want to read the Supreme Court's decision
on Louisiana's "balanced-treatment" law, you would
enter "EDWARDS v. AGUILLARD" in the search box. Then
select "US Supreme Court" from the pull-down menu
box on the right and click the "Search" button.
- David K.
DeWolf, Stephen C. Meyer and Mark Edward DeForrest. "Teaching
the Origins Controversy: Science, Or Religion, Or Speech?"
Utah Law Review 39 (2000).
http://www.arn.org/docs/dewolf/utah.pdf
- David K.
DeWolf, Stephen C. Meyer, Mark E. DeForrest. Intelligent
Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook.
Richardson, Texas: Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 1999.
http://www.arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm
- Creationism
v. Evolution: Will Religion or Science Prevail? On Justice
Talking, from National Public Radio. Audio debate between
Prof. David K. DeWolf, of the Gonzaga School of Law in Spokane,
Wash. and Eugenie C. Scott, of the National Center for Science
Education in Oakland, Calif.
http://justicetalking.org/shows/show135.asp
|