!

Andrew S. Terrell
Public Policy History

Policy Piece: Dlan Lovan “Top home-school texts dismiss Darwin, evolution,”
The Washington Post, 6 March 2010.

Christian-based materials purportedly dominate the home-school education markets. Of

the 1.5 million students enrolled in home-school in 2007, 83 percent of the families “want to give

their children religious or moral instruction.” These statistics reveal that a vast majority of

home-schoolers identify themselves as evangelical Christians and thus want creationism included

in science curriculum. Evolutionists believe these staggering numbers in favor of creationism

are “promulgating lies to kids.” There are two larger issues raised in the article that have lengthy

histories involving politics: 1. The home-school textbook industries realize their market’s

demand and strive to make their customers happy; 2. The issue of Church and State separation

and whether it applies to education. In essence, should public schools, in general, present only

Darwin’s evolution theory, only Creationism, or both?1

The historic trends of evolution vs. creationism in public schools show us that policy is

largely the result of social acceptances. For instance, from the time of Darwin’s Origin of

Species, 1859, through the American Civil War and early Gilded Age, we see a phase of

“probationary application.” After 1880 and through much of the populist/early progressive era,

we see an influx of testimonies and even an “infiltration of evolutionism into every division of

scholarship.” In a way, Darwinism caught on slowly as society changed from the rural America

into the urban-centered, industrial power. The very forces that quickened economic stimulation,

advanced intellectual thinking and sharing, mass rapid transportation for one example. Darwin

1Dylan Lovan, “Top home-school texts dismiss Darwin, evolution,” The Washington Post. 6 March 2010, Available
on-line at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/06/AR2010030601343.html.

1
!

allowed for questions to be raised against religion. Biological evolutionism supplied a

naturalistic interpretation of life forms and religious development. Sociologists and

anthropologists established stages of religious growth and customs while archaeologists

discovered the legend of Gilgamesh and creation paintings in the Chaldean remains. These

advancements in the human experience brought into question absolute truths and whether science

was compatible with religion. When Darwin died in 1882, it became a social sin against the

spirit of learning to refute his hypothesis. By 1900, there was “scarcely a worker in the natural

sciences and hardly a reputable scholar in any quarter who still harbored serious objections.”2

The first political battle between the two schools of species origination culminated in

Dayton, Tennessee in 1925: John Scopes v State, or “the monkey trial” as it became known. The

Tennessee Board of Education prohibited the teaching of “any theory that denies the story of the

Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible.” Scopes, however, read Darwin’s theory to his

high school class and was subsequently arrested and indicted. William Jennings Bryan was

selected to prosecute Scopes against Clarence Darrow. Scopes was ultimately found guilty and

fined $100. The court decision was overturned shortly thereafter. Forty-three years later, the

U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas, that law prohibiting teaching evolution in

public schools was designed to protect the doctrine and sensibilities of a particular religious

group, which under the first amendment, would constitute an establishment of religion. Shortly

after this ruling, Protestant fundamentalists formed Christian groups and created the concept of

scientific-creationism and promoted the adoption of a 2-model approach to teaching both

evolution and creationism in public schools as scientific theories. Later, in 1979 Sacramento,

2Bert James Loewenberg, “Darwinism Comes to America, 1859-1900,” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review
28, No. 3 (December 1941), 339-368.

2
!

California, Creation-Science Research Center filed a complaint against the California Board of

Education for issuing the curriculum guide entitled, Science Framework for California Public

Schools. The Creation-Science Center asserted the document promulgated the theory of

evolution as the ONLY credible theory of the origins of life. They further argued that the theory

of evolution was hostile to and contributed repugnant coercion against their religious beliefs. 3

The views of the evolutionists in 2010 are more secular in nature than their creationist

counterparts, naturally. Evolutionists believe religion does have a place in school as part of the

human experience, but teaching creationism in science classes only confuses children. President

George W. Bush pushed for both evolution and creationism to be taught in public schools to

advance and understand the debate in the coming generations. However, teaching both is still the

underpinning of a belief that evolution is being undermined in public schools.

In the 1960s, a group tried to revise Biology curriculum throughout the United States. At

the time, Biological Studies of Science was a favorite textbook and inside its pages evolution was

chapter twenty-three, the last chapter. Teachers could teach their entire science course without

touching evolution until the end. The study group, therefore, made evolution the first chapter.

This dramatic shift was largely in response to federal grants towards science and math in public

schools after the success of Sputnik. To evolutionists, creationism (or intelligent design as noted

by some) is not a science. This is because science purportedly deals with the study of error. As

such, there is no legitimate scientific proof or fact, only disproofs and hypotheses. However,

from this approach, one must conclude that evolution is only a theory as well. Because of this

3 Donald F. Popham, “Creationism, Evolution, and the Public Schools,” The Clearing House 59, No. 2 (October
1985), 69-71; Randy Moore, “Creationism in the United States: The Aftermath of the Scopes Trial,” The American
Biology Teacher 60, No. 8 (October 1998), 568-577; Michael F. Antolin and Joan M. Herbers, “Evolution’s Struggle
for Existence in America’s Public Schools,” Evolution 55, No. 12 (December 2001), 2379-2388; Adam Rutherford,
“On Evolution and Creationism.” School Matters on Teachers.tv. 3 November 2008.

3
!

objective approach to fundamental science, many scientists of different schools are coming forth

agreeing that both creationism and evolution can and must be taught.4

Key arguments against creationism, beyond the largely known assertions of Darwin’s

work, lie in the first chapters of the Judeo-Christian Bible. In the book of Genesis, evolutionists

read how God created the heavens and the earth after his spirit was over water. Evolutionists

question where the water came from. Evolutionists assert that the bible was later edited so that

these things coalesced to make it seem as though one God were behind it all. Jim Mellet

believes creationism is a destructive tool to young minds and society’s natural advancement. He

asserts that creationists are terrified by science because it brings too many preconceptions into

question. He calls on a quote from late night comedian, Stephen Colbert, who noted “Reality has

a notably liberal bias.” Facts have a liberal bias, knowledge does as well if one follows this

thought process through. Thereby, Mellet concludes that anytime you have knowledge, you have

change, and conservatives by trade do not want change; it is a fear. 5

Darwin himself wrote a letter to a friend in 1877 stating that all he needed was a puddle

of water, nitrogen, phosphorus, and some energy and he could create amino acids. It was not

until a century later that a graduate student tested this claim, and successfully created amino

acids. The significance being that with the right ingredients one could create precursors to

protein mass. The student concluded that almost every compound needed for life could be

4Sheila Hamilton, “Evolution vs Creationism: Interview with Geologist Jim Mellet,” Speaking Freely, 30 March
2008.
5 Ibid.

4
!

created in a laboratory. But, creationists challenge that the complex structures of physiology

could be created by chance of these forces meeting at some predetermined time.6

While it may seem that the majority of evolutionists are atheists, David Berlinski, an

advocate of open discussion, believes scientists are not trained to be this way. He believes

“teaching” creationism is inaccurate semantics. Rather, teachers should be exposing students to

both sides of the debate. “We should expose them to the possibilities of other theories, isn’t this

what science is about?” Creationists believe evolutionists have been outspoken for 150 years,

not the other way around. Intelligence design is simply a theory, but its evidence should be

followed and traced. The Discovery Institute has a growing list of scientists who question

Darwin’s theory, so even among scientists, there is no consensus. According to Berlinski,

observation and evidence can only take study so far, then theory has to take us to hypotheses.

Darwinism is a theory, but that does not make it a fact. Berlinski, also believes students should

be exposed to all sides, not just restricted to one or the other based on what school they attend.7

History reveals how social trends progressed along with policies for the evolution v.

creationism education systems. What Lovan’s article shows us, is that the debate is far from

over. If anything as intellectual thought has continued to spread even faster in the technology

age, the debate has become more heated. Can both schools of thought be taught (or more

correctly, be exposed) without offending the other? This is the question that will be on the minds

of twenty-first century school boards and judges.

6___ “Evolution vs Creationism: Interview with Princeton-trained Mathematician, David Berlinski,” Speaking
Freely, 6 April 2008.
7 Ibid.

5
!

Antolin, Michael F. and Joan M Herbers. “Evolution’s Struggle for Existence in America’s
Public Schools.” Evolution 55, No. 12 (December 2001), 2379-2388.

Hamilton, Sheila. “Evolution vs Creationism: Interview with Geologist Jim Mellet,” Speaking
Freely. 30 March 2008.

_____. “Evolution vs Creationism: Interview with Princeton-trained Mathematician, David

Berlinski,” Speaking Freely. 6 April 2008.

Loewenberg, Bert James. “Darwinism Comes to America, 1859-1900,” The Mississippi Valley
Historical Review 28, No. 3 (December 1941), 339-368.

Lovan, Dylan. “Top home-school texts dismiss Darwin, evolution.” The Washington Post. 6
March 2010.

Moore, Randy. “Creationism in the United States: The Aftermath of the Scopes Trial.” The
American Biology Teacher 60, No. 8 (October 1998), 568-577.

Peter III, Walter G.. “Fundamentalist Scientists Oppose Darwinian Evolution.” BioScience 20,
No. 19 (October 1970), 1067-1069.

Popham, Donald F.. “Creationism, Evolution, and the Public Schools.” The Clearing House 59,
No. 2 (October 1985), 69-71.

Rutherford, Adam. “On Evolution and Creationism.” School Matters on Teachers.tv. 3

November 2008.

Sproul, R.C.. “A Discussion between R.C. Sproul and Ben Stein about evolution and the movie,
‘Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,’” Ligonier Ministries, Released 2 July, 2008.