47
The State University of New York
At Potsdam
CREATIONISM VERSUS EVOLUTION
By
Lisa Stewart
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of
Department of Early Childhood/Childhood/General Professional Education
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
General Professional Education, MSED
Potsdam, New York
May, 2006
47
This thesis entitled
CREATIONISM VERSUS EVOLUTION
By Lisa Stewart
Has been approved for the
Department of Early Childhood/Childhood/General Professional Education
______
Program Coordinator Date
______
Student Researcher Date
The final copy of the above mentioned thesis has been examined by the signatories and found to meet acceptable standards for scholarly work in the discipline in both form and content.
47
PERMISSION TO COPY
I grant The State University of New York College at Potsdam the non-exclusive right to use this work for the University’s own purposes and to make single copies of the work available to the public on a not-for-profit basis if copies are not otherwise available.
Lisa Stewart May 2006
Abstract
New York State’s educational system fails to address the theory of Creationism in regards to the Living Environment Core Curriculum. The purpose of this study was to examine the theoretical points of view contained within the Living Environment Core Curriculum in New York State. This study answered the question of how Northern New York State schools deal with the controversial theories of Creationism versus Evolution through the different perspectives of 15 Living Environment Core Curriculum teachers across 15 different school districts in rural areas in Northern New York. Each school district contains one Living Environment Core Curriculum teacher. These participants were selected based on their availability, willingness to participate, and their ability to communicate verbally and in writing. This study utilized teacher action research where the researcher was the researching instrument conducting the research. A questionnaire was given to teachers who teach the Living Environment Core Curriculum in order to gather data. The data was analyzed using inductive analysis and constant comparative analysis. In order to maintain the validity of the data, triangulation was maintained throughout the study to strengthen its reliability. An audit trail was maintained throughout the research process.
Within the review of literature, Moore (2002) found that many teachers felt that Creationism should be taught in the Biology classroom along with Darwin’s theory of Evolution. These teachers felt that presenting another view gave students a better understanding of the fact that there are different theories of how humans came to exist. The results of this study show the opposite view.
The overall emerging theme that was found within the data collected in this study was that Northern New York Living Environment teachers who participated in this study, teach only the Living Environment Core Curriculum standards put forward by New York State. Most of these teachers teach Darwin’s theory of Evolution because it is the only scientific based theory of Evolution. Since Darwin’s theory of Evolution is part of the standards placed in New York State’s Living Environment Core Curriculum, it has become the theory of choice by the Living Environment teachers in this study. The teachers who responded to this study do not teach the theory of Creationism within their curriculum and do not want to because it is not a theory based on scientific facts, nor is it part of the New York State standards.
Major Advisor ______
Date ______
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the following people who helped assist me in the beginning stages of this project: Pat Farrand, Steve Martin and Michael Tatro.
CHAPTER ONE
Statement of the problem
New York State’s educational system fails to address the theory of Creationism in regards to the Living Environment Core Curriculum. Religious perspectives are often left out of the curriculum. Some Living Environment teachers feel that the teaching of Evolution should encompass Creationism.The New York State standards do not include any teaching from a Creationist's point of view.
Purpose of the study
The purpose of this study was to examine the theoretical points of view contained within the Living Environment Core Curriculum in New York State. This investigation interviewed Secondary Science Teachers who presently teach the Living Environment Core Curriculum within Northern New York. It was conducted to gain their perspective of the current controversy centering on the teaching of Evolution in public schools exclusively, without including the theory of Creationism. This study has examined the theoretical points of view contained within the Living Environment Core Curriculum in New York State and has examined the impact that this controversy, if any, has had in their instructional practices in the classroom.
Research question
The following question has guided this study:
1. How has New York State schools dealt with the controversial theories of Creationism versus Evolution?
Rationale
Living Environment teachers have faced difficult tasks in their classrooms in regards to the ongoing battle between advocates of the theory of Evolution and the advocates of Creationism. This dilemma has left many teachers wondering how to present the Living Environment Core Curriculum. Some teachers believe the New York State Living Environment Core Curriculum should present different perspectives regarding the origin of species.
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made:
1. The Living Environment Core Curriculum is only being taught from the Evolutionary perspective.
2. Students and communities want their cultural perspectives included in the teaching of Evolution.
3. Creationism versus Evolution is an issue that Living Environment Core Curriculum teachers have to deal with.
Definition of terms
The following is a list of terms and definitions related to this research study:
Evolution: The theory that all species of plants and animals developed from earlier forms by hereditary transmission of slight variations in successive generations. (Webster, 1970)
Creationism: Theory of the origin of life in accordance with the Bible. (Webster, 1970)
Scientific Creationism: A term to distinguish between what one perceives to be as scientific evidence of creationism and what one believes based on the Bible. It is the belief that scientific evidence alone will force any believer who examines the evidence with an open mind to conclude that organisms did not evolve. (Alters and Alters, 2001)
Limitations
This study was limited in the following ways:
1. Limited by the knowledge and experience of the researchers.
2. Limited by the personal bias of the researchers.
3. Limited to the size, demographics, economics, and the religious beliefs of small rural Northern New York towns.
4. Limited by the amount of time the researchers had available.
5. Limited by the amount of data collected.
6. Out of the 15 questionnaires that were sent to Secondary Living Environment teachers, 6 were returned completed. This equals the 40% needed to analyze the data collected.
Delimitations
This study is further defined by the following delimitations:
1. Although there are many theories of Creationism for the purpose of this study we only focused on Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and Christianity.
2. The curriculum examined is what is utilized in the public high schools in New York State.
3. Only Northern New York public school teacher’s opinions were studied.
4. The questionnaire was sent to 15 Living Environment Teacher’s personal e-mail addresses.
Summary
The New York State Standards within the Living Environment Core Curriculum do not reflect Creationist’s views. It is important that Creationism is addressed along with the teaching of Evolution in New York State public schools. Both teachers and students can benefit from incorporating Evolution and Creationism in New York State’s curriculum. The question guiding the study was, “How has New York State schools dealt with the controversial theories of Creationism versus Evolution?” This question invokes controversy and has left teachers wondering how to present the Living Environment Core Curriculum.
CHAPTER TWO
This review of the literature examined the actual content contained in the New York State Standards for the Living Environment Core Curriculum. It also examined the controversy that exists between Evolution and Creationism in the classroom, and the cultural and social impact on curriculum development in the Living Environment Core Curriculum.
New York State Standards
The New York State standards are a series of benchmarks that are considered necessary for a student’s educational experience. Within these standards there are specific key ideas and performance indicators to be mastered by the students. New York State’s educational system is embodied by a wide range of people, from students to the New York State Commissioner of Education. (Folts, 1996) Within this range there is a group of individuals that work together to determine expectations of student performance. It is from this group that the New York State standards are created and all of the individual key ideas and performance indicators for each subject area are determined. The Board of Regents then works on the creation and modifications of New York State Regents exams to monitor student performance. (Folts, 1996) This is based on many variables that stem from the predetermined standards.
The rational of this study was to research what is included and excluded from what is being taught in the science curriculum of Northern New York State public schools. Specifically, how Evolution is taught and how the theory of Creationism is not included. According to the Living Environment Core Curriculum Key Idea and Performance indicators (Appendix A) are taught to students attending public high school in New York State. Lerner (2001) conducted a study of the treatment of evolution as its being taught in biology classrooms within the fifty states. He found that 31 states scored satisfactory or better based on their treatment of Evolution in the biology classroom. New York State scored a 66 out of possible 100 points. Based on Lerner’s (2001) scale this characterizes New York as doing a satisfactory job at teaching Evolution in the biology classroom, with regards to New York State standards. Many states were evaluated with regards to the quality of states’ standards for teaching Evolution. The findings were as follows:
1. 10 states earned an A, which represented good to excellent treatment of
Evolution in their educational standards
2. 14 states earned a B, which represented good treatment
3. 7 states earned a C, which represented satisfactory treatment
4. 6 states earned a D, which represented unsatisfactory treatment and do not use the word Evolution in their educational standards
5. 13 states earned an F or F-, which indicated that their standards for teaching Evolution were useless for the purposes of teaching Evolution.
According to Lerner, the word “Evolution” is carefully avoided in the context of
Biology and the words, “change over time” are used in its place. Many times the subject of Evolution is avoided altogether. Those who oppose the teaching of Evolution are those who do not believe that Evolution has taken place. Some of those who do not believe in Evolution take on a belief of Creationism and feel that it should also be taught in the biology classroom. These opponents have come up with the term, “creation science” which is a pseudoscientific rival to Evolution. This creation science has manifested itself in many of the K-12 science standards in many states.
When teaching Evolution in the classroom, the science teacher must have a grasp of what Evolution means and have a basic understanding of what the theory claims. Those who are learning Evolution need to be given an adequate conception of the nature of science in order to effectively teach their students. (Farber, 2003)
“Many biology teachers avoid teaching Evolution, endorse Creationism, or – in some cases – teach Creationism.” (Moore, 2002 p. 50) It was found that of the schools that scored an F or F- for teaching Evolution also had a high percentage of teachers who questioned the validity of Evolution, want to teach Creationism or do currently teach Creationism. One-third of biology teachers in Kentucky, Ohio, Illinois, Kansas, and Georgia (who all scored a D or F) want Creationism taught in science class and many are actively teaching it, despite the case of Edwards vs. Aguillard, which found the teaching of Creationism in public school science classes to be unconstitutional. Similar situations were found in the states, which scored an A or B. For example, Indiana who scored an A had 43 percent of their biology teachers characterize their teaching of Evolution as “avoidance” or “briefly mentioned”. There is a question as to what extent of poor teaching of Evolution is due to weak standards. There has been a call for higher standards for the teaching of Evolution from professional organizations and well-known biologists, but these standards have not made a great difference. Riddle (1941) noted that Creationism was a favorite theory taught by biology teachers. However, less than half of high school biology teachers taught Evolution. (Moore, 2002)
Controversy
Evolution in the curriculum caused friction between church and state since the creation of the Constitution of the United States. An amendment to the “Blaine Amendment” of 1894, adopted in 1938, permits public support for transportation costs for pupils attending non-public schools. This amendment was challenged through 1970 when the United States Legislature permitted further public spending to include testing, reporting, pupil services, building maintenance, and some tuition costs. (Folts, 1996) As stated this demonstrated collaboration between the mechanics of public schools and religious schools. However, this did not permit the ideological differences between Creationism and Evolution. To date there is a clear distinction of what is to be taught based on the theory of Evolution and what is to be excluded from the curriculum in the New York State public school system. Due to this distinction many teachers in Living Environment classrooms face a great challenge. The ongoing battles between advocates of the theory of Evolution and advocates of the theory of Creationism have left many teachers wondering how to teach students the Living Environment Core Curriculum.
A study was conducted by Matthews (2001) to determine if Evolution theory could be taught including Creationist theory stories as well as Darwin’s theory of Evolution. Her belief was that students come into the biology classroom with preconceived notions of science and where humans come from. Most of these preconceived notions were not from a scientific point of view, but from a creationistic point of view. This was attributed to students’ religious and cultural backgrounds outside of the classroom. A pre-instruction survey and a post-instruction survey were given to 37 students enrolled in two mixed-majors General Biology course sections at a junior college in upstate New York. Matthews (2001) was able to determine from the study that students involved in curriculum that included Creationist theory stories were more likely to have a positive attitude towards the theory of Evolution. Students whose beliefs and existing ideas were considered and explored were more likely to consider the theory of Evolution as a possibility rather that disregard it as a flawed idea.