Opening up the controversy about teaching
creation/evolution
An
issue that is reported on periodically in the news since the Scopes Trial in
the USA in the 1920s is the difference between scientists’ explanations of the
emergence of mankind and the Earth and the seemingly opposing explanations of
religious groups and how this issue is tackled in compulsory science education.
This debate is often dubbed the ‘Creation vs. Evolution’ controversy.
Variations of this debate have been reported in e.g. the USA, Italy, Serbia,
Switzerland, Brazil among others and more recently the debate about teaching
creationist theories alongside evolution theories in a couple of faith schools
in England. The news reports were not only about what was happening in their
own country, but also about the situation in other countries. Investigating
issues like these it is quite surprising to find out that not much research has
been done yet on the relationships between education and the media[1]
or connections between education and religion[2].
Before
we dive deeper into this debate, I would like to remark that the intention of
this paper is not to support or to promote any particular way of teaching any
accounts of the origin of humans and the Earth. With a background in science
studies the nature of this account of the so-called ‘Evolution vs. Creation’
Controversy is exploratory and tries to start from a symmetrical point of view[3],
which means that none of the opposing groups or viewpoints will be granted a
more truthful position from start. The aim of this exploration is rather to
open up some complexities of this debate instead of narrowing down this
particular debate to a simplified account. I am going to illustrate the case of
Emmanuel College based on newspaper reports.
The situation in
England: the case of Emmanuel College
On
Saturday 9 March 2002 the British broadsheet The Guardian reported that fundamentalist Christians have taken
control of a state-funded secondary school in England[4].
The school concerned was Emmanuel College in Gateshead, a city college that is
technically independent but is funded by the government and the private sector.
In this case this meant that the teaching staff at Emmanuel College did not
only teach evolution theory but also creationist theories, ideas and
explanations in science classes. City Technology Colleges were set up 1988 by
the Conservative government to improve the financial situation of failing
inner-city schools. These partly privately funded schools are not bound to
follow the National Curriculum that concerns state schools in England and
Wales.[5]
The National Science Curriculum states that the theory of evolution and the
fossil record as evidence for evolution must be taught in compulsory schooling
at key stage 4 (the 10th and 11th year in English
schools).[6]
The City Technology Colleges are technically independent. They are outside
local authority control but are inspected by OfSTED (Office for Standards in
Education), the British education authority responsible for raising standards
in British schools. The Labour government has extended this policy through the
introduction of City Academies, which fulfil broadly the same criteria.
Emmanuel’s
head of Science, Stephen Layfield, is reported to have urged colleagues to show
the superiority of creationist beliefs, theories and explanations.8 It was also reported that the college hosted a
conference for creationists to exchange recipes and ideas[7].
Emmanuel College is a Christian school which achieved outstanding academic
results and received a very positive report from OfSTED[8].
The outstanding results that the schools achieved designated it a beacon school
by the government[9]. After the
issue of teaching creationist theories and explanations alongside evolution in
science education in a school in Britain had been publicised, other papers and
media then also covered the issue. For example, the Times Higher Education Supplement, a weekly specialised publication
for academic and educational issues, devoted
its front page to the issue on 22 March 2003.[10]
After that a flood of letters and other responses were published in daily
newspapers and other publications[11].
One issue here was that the credibility of the school and its educational
practices has been contested[12].
Laypeople and experts from outside the educational world got involved,
scientists like Richard Dawkins and Peter Atkins argued vehemently against the
idea of creationist explanations being taught alongside scientific theories at
school. A group of scientists around Richard Dawkins and the geneticist Steve
Jones called for a re-inspection of the school by OfSTED, but the authority
replied that the inspection was conducted more than a year ago, that would be
too late to do re-inspections[13].
Another group of 30 scientists and academics followed writing a letter to the
Education Secretary Estelle Morris, suggesting including other ways than
Darwinian evolution as explanations how and why humans emerged. It would be
more important, so they stated, to teach science pupils how to think and not
what to think.[14] Also
scientific journals started reporting on the issue[15].
The controversy grew and finally the British Prime Minister Tony Blair joined
the debate, calling the debate about Emmanuel College “overblown”[16],
backing up the school for its excellent teaching results. Criticism in the
press was not only directed towards the teaching of creationist explanations
alongside evolution in science classes but also against the sponsorship issues
that form an important and central part of the debate[17].
Emmanuel College received nearly £2 million from the Vardy Foundation, a
charitable organisation founded in 1989 by Sir Peter Vardy, an “evangelical Christian
creationist” and multi-millionaire owner of the Sunderland-based Reg Vardy car
dealership[18]. The Vardy
Foundation not only sponsored Emmanuel College in Gateshead, but also opened a
second school in Middlesbrough and began construction of a third in Doncaster
in early 2004. The Vardy Foundation is still involved as an active sponsor of
faith-based education and seems to try to extend its influence on other schools
in England[19].
‘Creationism’
and different groups of ‘Creationists’
To
open up the controversy it might be a good idea at first to have a look at the
term creationism. This is an operational definition that was developed during a
study that examined representations of science education in the media[20]:
“Way or ways of
explaining the world and the origin of life according to a belief, myth or
theory where one or more supernatural deities created the world and life on the
planet, no matter if this interpretation of the world agrees or is compatible
with current (Western) scientific explanations or not.”
Here
it is important to note that the different creeds and beliefs of diverse
religions have varying and very different ideas, myths and theories about the
origins of mankind and the world. And also within a religious community
interpretations of sacred texts and myths may sometimes vary considerably. The
‘Creation vs. Evolution’ Controversy around Emmanuel College primarily focuses
on Biblical accounts of the creation story as opposed to current scientific
explanations. But at the same time it should not be forgotten that Islam,
Sikhism, Hinduism and other religions offer very different creation myths and
stories that can all be relevant to members of multi-ethnic and multi-faith
societies. Here we are now going to have a look at whom the Christian
creationists are. To structure the types of creationism the categories proposed
by Cline[21]
have been extended:
The
so-called Flat Earthers and Geocentrists are a small but radical
minority who interpret the Bible literally, arguing that the Earth is flat instead
of round and that the Earth is the centre of the solar system. The so-called Young Earth Creationists are probably
the largest and most vocal group that is active in the United States and in
Britain. Cline describes them as a movement of conservative Christians that
relies on the most literal interpretation of the Bible22. The key characteristic of Young Earth Creationism is
described as the insistence on a “young” Earth that would be about 6,000 –
10,000 years old. The argumentation lines of Young-Earth Creationists are based
on deliberately religious beliefs and do not accept the approximated age of the
Earth of 4.5 billion years calculated by scientists. The position and
explanations taught at Emmanuel College alongside evolution theory seem to fall
in this category.[22] The Old-Earth Creationists are somewhat more
flexible concerning the age of the Earth. This rather small group accepts the
scientifically calculated age of the Earth but not the idea of evolution
itself. They use several additional theories or hypotheses to explain
aberrations from the Bible (e.g. a day-age theory that assumes that the seven days in which
the creation by God took place were not literal days, but might have been
millennia or more; or a gap-theory that states that there might have been long
gaps between the days of creation).
Other forms of creationists
present themselves in different ways; the Scientific
Creationists or Creation Scientists
also deny that an evolution took place but they see
themselves arguing scientifically, e.g. when they are presenting evidence for
their beliefs or publishing journals that are supposed to be scientific to
approve that the version of the Bible is true. Another important group of
creationists that is also often present in the debate about teaching evolution
in the press is the Intelligent Design
(ID) Movement. Intelligent Design is described as the most recent form of
creationism to emerge24.
These creationists share the view that the existence of God could be deduced
from the existence of intricate design that would be too complex to evolve by
itself. To illustrate this idea some of them use the example of a cell that
would be so “irreducibly complex” that it couldn’t have evolved by itself and
must have been created by a higher deity with a purpose. The influence of the Intelligent Design Movement seems to be
growing. They are also one important reason why the ‘Creation vs. Evolution’
Controversy in the USA turns out to be different from that in England. Whereas
in the concerned British faith-based schools Young-earth creationist
explanations are taught alongside evolutionary theories, the ID movement in the
US seems to have chosen education as a battleground to push their ‘scientific’
findings into science curricula, also in higher education. It is also reported
that the higher aim of this procedure is to find acknowledgement in the
scientific community[23].
Proponents of this movement for that reason do not refer to God or the Bible
but mention research findings, scientific literature and their own (scientific)
expert status. A very widespread and non-fundamental form of creationism is the
position of Theistic Evolution also
called Evolutionary Creationism. The
most basic definition here is that creationism does not have to be incompatible
with evolution. There are many people, also scientists, who believe in a
creator deity (or deities) and who also consider evolution to be scientifically
valid. Here mainly two positions have to be distinguished: Deism (one or several God(s) might have started the development of
life but then just let the process have its own way without any further
interference) and the Theistic position,
which assumes that God(s) use evolution on purpose and intentionally to create
the species they wanted to create. In this regard it is important to notice
that behind the different forms of creationism we also find different
theologies[24]. Also
different versions and rewritings of the Bible might be used as the basis of
the various creationist ideas and theories.
As pictured in the
case of Theistic Evolution or Evolutionary Creationism it is not automatically
the case that evolution theory, the theory of a Big Bang and the belief in the
creation of life through one or more god/s contradict each other. Among
scientists there are many believers to be found[25].
At the same time there are many Christians and other believers who acknowledge
evolutionary processes[26].
Evolutionists,
Darwinists and Scientists
The same is true
looking at the assumed other side of the debate: notions among scientists
concerning Darwin and theories of evolution. Also today there is a variety of
theories, ideas and beliefs about what counts as evolution and how it takes
place that ranges from naturalists that take the influence of the environment
on the evolution of species into account to “Neo-Darwinian fundamentalists”
that have a very narrow gene-centred view of how evolution takes place[27].
Among evolutionists we find agreement that evolution took place but there is
e.g. dissent how exactly it turned out; if it was a punctuated or gradual
process. The term ‘Darwinism’ also underwent a considerable range of varieties
and usages in different times, theories and disciplines[28].
And (evolutionary) biology is only one discipline within the many different
sciences. Another, namely cosmology and the theory of the big bang is another
area that is contested by some of the Christian creationists. Physicists might
have a completely different view on the theory of evolution, but nonetheless,
they are often, by default, described as “scientists”.
The complexity of
the debate
The brief account of
the evolution/creation controversy at Emmanuel College adds further to the
complexity of the issue. There is more involved than just the difficult and
permeable boundaries between religious truths and scientific truths and the
varying beliefs between the heterogeneous groups of scientists and religious
people[29].
New actors appeared and new alliances were forged: Particularly interesting are
the two different groups of scientists, which both sent letters to the
Education Secretary14 + 15. Another interesting factor from neither a
scientific nor a religious field was OfSTED, the education authority that
awarded Emmanuel College excellent education standards. There is another black
box that must be opened to understand the debate: How did OfSTED assess their
inspections and what exactly was the reason to award beacon status to Emmanuel
College? The very good results awarded by OfSTED could later be used by the
creationist educators of Emmanuel College to defend their teaching practices.
Another controversial issue was the involvement of Sir Peter Vardy, whose
generous sponsorship potentially was beneficial for Emmanuel College to reach
the outstanding teaching results. Critics of the teaching practices at Emmanuel
College could then argue that what was happening at Emmanuel College was wrong,
because the idea that a rich sponsor could have an influence on the curriculum
content would distort the idea of an equal education system completely. It is
also interesting to have a closer look at the experts that were arguing against
the teaching practices. One of the vehement and publicly active critics, namely
Richard Dawkins, is an established evolutionary biologist and professor for the
public understanding of science at Oxford University. Richard Dawkins made
himself a name as an atheist in previous press coverage[30]
and has since 1996 been Vice President of British Humanist Association, that
publicly agitates against faith-based education and sees its mission in the
promotion of Humanism and a life without “religious or superstitious beliefs”[31].
Here it is not entirely obvious if Dawkins speaking as a scientist, atheist or
both. However, he can use his scientific expert status to promote personal
beliefs. The same is true, of course, for pro creation educators or scientists
who use their expert status as successfully OfSTED approved educators or
scientists working in reputable institutions to promote their personal beliefs
on religious issues. Finally, in the person of the British Prime Minister Tony
Blair, official politics enter the public space of this debate backing up the
school for its good teaching results. As British Prime Minister Tony Blair
represented the government, which had to deal with the difficult financial
situation of the education system. Privately sponsored schools were highly
welcomed at the time to support the under financed school sector. Privately
sponsored schools were given charitable status to help fix the education system.
And this might be one reason why as representative of the government Tony Blair
defended the excellent results of the teaching practices of this privately
sponsored City College[32].
At the same time it has been reported that Tony Blair himself is a Christian
believer and that he might defend the teaching practices at Emmanuel College
also for personal reason and beliefs[33].
Another powerful
factor in the public representation of this debate is the viewpoint of the
journalists that report on this issue. Media professionals have a range of
possibilities to frame statements, quotes and their sources as credible or
biased21.
But the journalists and editors themselves are only one of several factors that
influence media reporting.
Another additional
complexity is the abstract nature of the debate in the media and between
scientists and believers and the actual practice of what is happening in the
classroom or school lab. It could be assumed that the personal belief of the
science teachers might also influence which and how the concerned topics are
presented in compulsory science education. Another issue concerns the actual
target of schooling: the heterogeneity of the pupils. Some pupils might be
trapped between their personal cultural and religious backgrounds and beliefs
and the contents that they are required to learn in compulsory science
education in order to graduate. Here it is important to see that in religious
education the pupils are often separated alongside their religious origins or
backgrounds. But no matter if the pupils come from different religious or
cultural backgrounds or not, they all have to attend the ‘unified’ science
classes. What is hard to accept for science teachers may be true for some
children and their parents. The disproval of their beliefs may become a threat
to personal values and beliefs. In this way the issues of teaching evolution
and/or creation or leaving out certain accounts touches on personal and
cultural identities, the acknowledgement of minorities and the diversity of pupils.
Another issue is the
diversity of scientific theories in science teaching. Evidence for evolution is
less strong than in other theories[34].
The question what science education is actually for also plays an important
role in this controversy. If science education is all about professional
employment and only responsible for teaching the so-called facts, equations and
formulas, then it is probably not a good idea to include religious accounts in
the science classroom. But if science education has the aim to help pupils
understand the diversity, historicity and sometimes provisional and tentative
nature of scientific knowledge and difference between scientific explanations
and religious ideas and interpretations, so that they can become better
informed citizens, then it should be possible to juxtapose the two without
devaluing any of them[35].
But again, in pluralist and multi-faith societies it has to be thought about
which religious accounts are represented and which are left out.
The aim of this
short paper was to suggest that what often appears to be a straightforward and
simple dichotomy between atheist scientists and fundamentalist believers under
closer scrutiny reveals greater complexity.
Suddenly influential
elements such as high ranking politicians, heterogeneous groups of
creationists, scientists, teachers, journalists, parents and students, their
attitudes, values and beliefs, education standards and authorities, different
attitudes and ideas about the aims of science education, sponsorship issues, identity
and minority issues and the use of diverse rhetorical strategies and discursive
streams in the promotion of different aims play a role and all shape and
contribute to the complexity of the debate. It shall be the task of further
research to open up some of the relevant black boxes and to shed some light on
the various interesting and under-researched relationships between science,
education, the media and the public. The controversy about teaching
creation/evolution and how it is played out in the media provides an
interesting case for studying how all the above-mentioned heterogeneous
elements and factors play together and develop and shape the controversy.
[1] See for instance Baker, M. (2000): “Does
education get the media it deserves?” Inaugural Lecture, Institute of
Education. London, and Macmillan, K. (2002): “Narratives of Social Disruption:
education news in the British tabloid press.” In: Discourse: studies in the
cultural politics of education. Vol. 23. No 1, p. 27 – 38.
[2] Grace, G. (2004): “Making Connections for
Future Directions: taking religion seriously in the sociology of education.”
In: International Studies in Sociology of Education. Vol. 14, No. 1, p. 47 –
56.
[3] Theoretically this article is based on the
ideas of Actor-Network-Theory (ANT), proposed by Bruno Latour and Michel
Callon. See e.g. Callon, M. (1986): “Some Elements of a Sociology of
Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St. Brieuc
Bay.” In: Law, J. (ed.): “Power, Action and Belief: a new sociology of
knowledge?” London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, p. 196 – 223 and Latour, B.
(1993): “We have never been modern”, Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
[4] Branigan, T. (2002): “Top school’s creationists
preach value of biblical story over evolution. State-funded secondary teachers
do not accept findings of Darwin.” In: The Guardian, 9 March 2002.
[5] For a full description of City Academies and
City Technology Colleges, see the relevant page of the Department for Education
and Skills (DfES): http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/academies/
[6] For the complete national curriculum, see
www.nc.uk.net
[7] Branigan, T. (2002): “Top school’s creationists
preach value of biblical story over evolution. State-funded secondary teachers
do not accept findings of Darwin.” In: The Guardian, 9 March 2002.
[8] Olwen, G. and Halpin, T. (2003): “Success is
divine for creationist college”, The Times, 22 August 2003. The whole report
can be accessed online at: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/reports/108/108420.pdf
[9] Norfolk, A. (2002): “Creationists planning to
open six new schools,” The Times, 28 April 2002.
[10] E.g. Farrar, S. (2002): “Creationists bid for
status on campus,” T.H.E.S., 22 March 2002.
[11] Ellen, R. (2002). "Dangerous fictions and
degrees of plausibility. Creationism, evolutionism and anthropology."
Anthropology Today 18(5): 3 - 8.
[12] E.g.: Anonymous (2002): “Leader: Matter of
Faith – Creationism at the taxpayers’ expense”, in: The Guardian, 9 March 2002.
[13] Clancy, J. (2002): “CTC’s creationist talk
enrages scientists”. In: Times Educational Supplement, 15 March 2002. O’Leary,
J. and Jenkins, R. (2002): “Academic criticises creationist school”. In: The
Times, 15 March 2002. Herbert, I. (2002): ”Storm over teaching of creationism
at school”. In: The Independent, 15 March 2002. Clancy, J. (2002):
“Creationists are called to be school governors”. In: Times Educational
Supplement, 22 March 2002.
[14] See Dean, C. (2002): “Let’s teach science
pupils how to think.” In: Times Educational Supplement, 26 April 2002.
[15] E.g. Gross, Michael
(2002): “US-style creationism spreads to Europe”. In: Current Biology Vol. 12,
No. 8, pp 265 – 266, 16 April 2002.
[16] Pyke, N. (2004): “Revealed: Blair’s link to
schools that take the Creation literally.” In: Independent on Sunday, 13 June
2004.
[17] Bennett, C. (2003): “And lo, the car dealer
begat an academy of faith,” The Guardian, 1 May 2003;
[18] Shaw, M. (2003): “Where frivolity has no
place?” In: Times Educational Supplement, 30 May 2003.
[20] Some of the results of this study have been
presented at the 8th international conference Public Communication
of Science and Technology (PCST), Barcelona, 3-6 June 2004. The paper Allgaier, J. (2004): “Representing
Science Education in the Media: Newspaper Coverage of Evolutionary Theory and
Creationist Explanations”, is available at: www.pcst2004.org
[21] Cline, Austin (2004): “Types of Creationism” http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_cre_types.htm, 14 June 2004.
[22] E.g. Jones, S. (2002): “Creationists spread
pure poison. View from the lab.” In: The Daily Telegraph, 20 March 2002.
[23] An article in the technology focused
Wired-Magazine recently investigated the controversy in the US with special
focus on the Intelligent Design Movement. The author has put some effort in
explaining the different positions and dilemmas in the US context: Ratliff, E.
(2004): “The Crusade against Evolution”, in: Wired Issue 12.10 - October 2004.
Article available at: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html
[24] Crews, F. C. (2001): “Saving us from Darwin.”
In: The New York Review of Books. Vol. 48, No. 15, 4 October 2001.
[25] Mackenzie Brown, C. (2003). "The conflict
between religion and science in light of the patterns of religious belief among
scientists." Zygon 38(3): 603 - 632.
[26] Scott, E. (1996). "Creationism Ideology
and Science." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences No. 775: p. 505 -
522.
[27] See for instance: Davies, M. W. (2002).
“Darwin and Fundamentalism. Postmodernism and Big Science. Einstein. Dawkins.
Kuhn. Hawking. Darwin.” In: R. Appignanesi (Ed). Cambridge, Icon Books: 53 -
97. Kingsland, S. (2003). “Neo-Darwinism and Natural History.” In: Krige, J.
and Pestre, D. (Eds) “Companion to Science in the Twentieth Century.” London,
Routledge: 417 - 437.
[28] See
Young, R.M. (2002): “The meanings of Darwinism: Then and Now”. In: Science as
Culture, Vol. 11. No. 1, p. 93 – 114.
[29] See e.g. Gieryn, T. (1994): "Boundaries
of science." In: Jasanoff, S. et al. (eds): “Handbook of Science, Technology
and Society” Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage, p. 393 – 443.
[30] This is a quote from one of his articles: “To
fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like
littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.”
Dawkins, R. (2001): “Religion’s misguided missiles.” In: The Guardian, 15 Sept
2001.
[31] See their self-description on their website: http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentChapterView.asp?chapter=333, 20 May 2004.
[32] For a brief review of faith-based schooling
and the City Academy programme, see: Centre for Public Policy Research (2002):
“Faith-Based Schooling and the Invisible Effects of 11 September 2001: the view
from England.” In: Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education.
Vol. 23, No. 3, p. 309 – 317, or more recently: BBC News, 26 October 2004
“Blair in academy talks with heads,” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3956589.stm;
Shifrin, T. (2004): “Call for rethink on private schools’ charitable status”,
In: The Guardian, 30 September 2004.
[33] E.g. Ahmed, K. (2003): “And on the seventh day
Tony Blair created…” In: The Observer, 3 August 2003; Beckett, F. and Hencke,
D. (2004): “Regular at mass, communion from the Pope. So why is Blair evasive
about his faith?” In: The Guardian, 28 September 2004.
[34] See Reiss, M. (2000): “Teaching science in a
multicultural, multi-faith society”. In: Sears, J. and Sorensen, P. (Eds):
“Issues in Science Teaching”, London: Routledge/Falmer, p. 16 – 22.
[35] Attempts have already been made to do so, e.g.
within the A/S level course Science for Public Understanding, see Cassidy, A.
with Barnes, E. (2004): “Evolution, Creationism and ‘Intelligent Design’”,
available at: http://www.chstm.man.ac.uk/outreach/ASevolution.pdf,
14 October 2004.
Contact
address:
Joachim Allgaier
The Open University
Faculty of Science
Walton Hall
Milton Keynes
MK7 6AA
United Kingdom
Email: J.Allgaier@open.ac.uk