30 S C I E N T I F I C A M E R I C A N M A R C H 2 0 0 2

RO

DG

ER

DO

YLE

newsSCAN

Criteria used in rating state standards on the teaching

of evolution:

■ Is the word “evolution” used?

■ Is biological evolution treated?

■ Is human evolution treated?

■ Is geological evolution treated?

■ Is cosmology treated?

■ Are connections among historical sciences treated

(for example, discussion of the essential role of living things

in the transition to an oxidizing atmosphere)?

■ Is creationist jargon used?

■ Is there a disclaimer that subverts the sound treatment

of evolution?

S O U R C E : G o o d S c i e n c e , B a d S c i e n c e : T e a c h i n g E v o l u t i o n i n t h e S t a t e s , b y

L a w r e n c e S . L e r n e r . T h o m a s B . F o r d h a mF o u n d a t i o n , W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . , 2 0 0 0

( w w w . e d e x c e l l e n c e . n e t ) . N o t a t i o n s o nt h e m a p a r e q u o t a t i o n s f r o m t h e b o o k .

EVOLUTIONARYSTANDARDS S ince 1920 creationists have been suc-

cessful in persuading legislatures in fiveSouthern states to pass laws favorable to

their views, but the courts consistently struckthem down, saying that they violated the es-tablishment clause of the Constitution. In the1990s creationists began focusing instead onchanging state educational standards. Themost famous attempt to do so in recent years—

the decision of the Kansas Board of Educationto eliminate evolution from the state’s sciencestandards—was not a success: the decision wasreversed in 2001 when antievolution boardmembers were defeated for reelection.

Still, creationists have been victorious inmany other states, a trend catalogued byLawrence S. Lerner of California State Uni-versity at Long Beach. His evaluation, sum-marized and updated in the map below, isvaluable in part because it points up the wide-spread sway of creationists in Northernstates, such as Illinois, Ohio and Wisconsin,that have a liberal or moderate tradition. Fur-thermore, it highlights the fact that certainSouthern states—North and South Caroli-na—have more rigorous educational stan-dards than some Northern states, such asNew York and Massachusetts.

There is little information on what is actu-

ally taught in individual classrooms and schooldistricts, so it is not clear what effect state stan-dards have on the quality of evolution teach-ing. The influence of the standards is, howev-er, potentially great because they are likely toaffect the content of textbooks and lessonplans. Standards set the tone under whichteachers and administrators work and, if writ-ten well, make it easier for science-orientededucators to insist that all teachers, includingthe one third who advocate equal time for cre-ationism, observe proper guidelines.

Creationists have been able to alter stateeducation standards despite being a fairlysmall minority. According to a 1999 poll bythe People for the American Way Foundation,a Washington, D.C.–based organization op-posed to the teaching of creationism in scienceclasses, only 16 percent of Americans supportthe teaching of creationism to the exclusion ofevolution. A huge majority—83 percent—fa-vor teaching evolution, but most of themmaintain that creationism should be discussedin science classes with evolution. Only 37 per-cent expressed strong support for evolution—

that is, teaching it to the exclusion of all reli-gious doctrine in science classes.

In the absence of a majority favoring strictstandards for evolution teaching, it is easy tosee why creationists have been able to makeheadway even outside the circle of evangelicalChristianity. In 1996 Pope John Paul II reaf-firmed the Catholic Church’s commitment toevolution, first stated in 1950, saying that hisinspiration for doing so came from the Bible.Despite this, 40 percent of American Catho-lics in a 2001 Gallup poll said they believedthat God created human life in the past 10,000years. Indeed, fully 45 percent of all Ameri-cans subscribe to this creationist view. Manywho are indifferent to conservative theologygive creationism some support, perhaps be-cause, as mathematician Norman Levitt ofRutgers University suggests, the subject ofevolution provokes anxiety about the natureof human existence, an anxiety that antievo-lutionists use to promote creationist ideas.

Rodger Doyle’s e-mail is rdoyle2@delphi.com

Down with Evolution! CREATIONISTS ARE CHANGING STATE EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS BY RODGER DOYLE

BY

THE

NU

MB

ER

S

Rating of Evolution Treatment in State Public School Science Standards Very good/excellent

Satisfactory/good

Unsatisfactory,useless or absent

No statestandard

“solid if uninspired”

“well- organized”

“meager”

“human evolution ...ignored”

“marred by ...creationist notions”

“confused”

“an embarrassment”

“exemplary”

“inclusion of creationist jargon”

“useless”

“The ‘E’ wordis avoided”

“marred by ... creationist jargon”

“model of ... goodorganization”

“thorough and challenging treatment”“treatment of evolution ... useless”

“Mississippi appearsdetermined to keepevolution outsideits borders”

“treatment of the life sciences is useless”

“human evolution (not covered)”

Washington, D.C.

MA

CA

ORMT

AK

NE

TX

MS GA

SC

NC

WV

OHIN

IL

WI NY

ME

Copyright 2002 Scientific American, Inc.