Amidst everything else happening in the world today, there is a battle raging on

between American families, citizens, friends, and coworkers. A civil war has affected

Americans for years, but this conflict cannot be seen on any battlefield; instead, it can be

found in public school classrooms across the nation. Scientists have been exchanging

blows with religious believers over the creation of man since 1859, when Darwin first

published his book on the theory of evolution [Ucci 29]. More recently, religious

believers have been fighting to keep creationism, as it is in the Bible, in the classroom.

The majority of these people are Christians who generally side with the belief that God

created mankind in one of two ways: man and woman were created at one time and

eventually populated the earth, or that God created the world and its contents in six days

[Isaak 13]. Evolution theory has proved its scientific relevance in many instances,

specifically in the fact that it can be tested in the same method that other scientific

material is. Despite this, religious followers continue to question its place in American

classrooms and science curricula because it does not agree with the biblical explanation

of creation [Detwiler 26].

The issue at hand has been an ongoing argument between Americans of different

backgrounds, cultures, and religions for many years. The debate between creationists and

evolutionists has emerged in the public classroom for some time, now, and has not

seemed to reach a definite conclusion. It has already been established that, because of the

rights granted onto Americans by the First Amendment, creationism’s existence in public

schools is unconstitutional; it is a religious belief, and its presence in a science

curriculum would violate the separation of church and state.

In turn, religious believers have introduced a new “scientific theory” known as

intelligent design to compete with the “evolutionist agenda” and claim that behind

evolution is an intelligent designer, or God, who originally created man. Intelligent

design has since been deemed a religious belief with no scientific evidence behind it, but

creationists will not give up the fight. The Discovery Institute is a major backer in the

fight to introduce intelligent design to the public classroom, spending over $1 million

every year [Slevin 4].

1
 The primary piece of scientific evidence in intelligent design is based on the

flagellum of bacteria. According to Darwin, the way to disprove evolution would be the

discovery of an organism that would not be affected by survival of the fittest; all of the

parts of an organism would have to work together, and without one of these parts, the

organism could not function. Professor Philip Johnson, the father of intelligent design (or

creation science) discovered that the multitude of tiny parts that enable the function of a

flagellum must work as a whole for the flagellum to work properly. However, this

finding was not deemed as enough to disprove evolution, and eventually was proven to

be incorrect. Because of this outcome, intelligent design was seemingly void of scientific

evidence, leaving it only to religious belief [van der Pool 22].

The issue concerning whether or not to teach creationism in public schools is

important because it is not only a part of American history, but will also be an important

part of America’s future. As more developments are made and more arguments on the

issue arise, the issue will effect generations for years to come. By analyzing the many

factors that come into play during this debate, a step can be made to determining a

conclusion.

Thus, people across the nation are split on a common issue. Creationists side with

the belief that mankind (and all of the earth) was created by a higher being; others believe

that intelligent design is the answer to the argument, stating that mankind is the work of

an intelligent being (without presenting a nature or identity for God).

On the other side of the spectrum are evolutionists, who think that religious

beliefs have no place in the classroom and science is truth. The primary processes of

thought for evolutionists stem from the works of the creator of evolution, Charles

Darwin. Darwin published his study of evolution, “The Origin of Species”, with claims

that man had descended from primates. While there is no way to definitely prove

evolution as true or false, the theory has withstood not only the test of time, but also the

scientific method. This scientific method is defined by its way of testing information

until it is proven to be completely true, beyond doubt. People who favor the theory of

2
evolution over other religious forms of creation support evolution because it is tested by

science, and as of yet, has not been proven wrong in the scientific community.

However, between these two opposite ends, there is a middle ground: a grey area

between the black and white that thinks both evolution and creationist beliefs can coexist

in the classroom and, together, provide a beneficial learning experience for students by

means of discussion [Davis 5]. Prayer and religion is constitutionally protected in public

schools; this method would merely make religion in public schools constructive for all

students [Spellings 10].

If a ban on evolution is not granted to creationists, the group hopes, at the very

least, to have students question it [Wilgoren 3]. However, because evolution is, in fact, a

scientific theory, much controversy arises from scientists and others who favor teaching

evolution.

Since the 1900s, there has been a modern movement by creationists to, for the

most part, get rid of evolution from the public school curriculum. As of 1925, nine state

boards of education had either banned or significantly bound the teaching of evolution.

During this same year, John Scopes was placed on trial for breaching the Tennessee ban

on teaching evolution; the case was among the first of its kind, and has had an impact on

decisions on the issue today [Glazet 30].

In 1996, Alabama schools placed an “evolution warning sticker” on all of their

biology textbooks stating that evolution is merely a theory and should be approached as

one. The sticker also encouraged students to keep an open mind while learning about the

theory.

In the summer of 1999, the Kansas School Board changed its science education

standards to expel evolution from the curriculum and standardized tests as a whole. More

recently, in February 2008, the Florida Board of Education finally changed their science

standards to refer to evolution as “scientific theory of evolution” rather than what it is

commonly referred to: “change over time”. This was the first time that the word

“evolution” was actually used in science standards [Ucci 29].

3
 The government has since changed some aspects of public school curricula, but

the decisions are primarily made by specific school districts and states. Even as early as

1964, the 88th Congress of the United States had conducted a staff study weighing the

benefits and detriments of different proposed amendments to the Constitution regarding

religion in public schools. The number of proposed amendments was so great that they

were devised into seven sections, based on the criteria that the amendment addressed. All

of these amendments were in favor of having some form of religion in public schools, as

none of them addressed any alternative keeping religion out. [88th Congress 9].

Regardless, none of these amendments were ever enacted. Since 2001, Alabama schools

have changed the sticker on all of the biology books, which serves as less of a warning to

students, but more of a statement, without nearly as much bias behind it. In February

2007, the Kansas Board of Education changed its curricula, keeping intelligent design

from being referred to and taught as an actual science.

As stated by the results of many court cases, there is not enough scientific

evidence to support the beliefs upheld by creationism or intelligent design. Their

inability to be tested by scientific methods and requirement of faith makes it

unconstitutional for the belief systems to be taught in class.

Currently, the battle raging on between creationism and evolution remains an

issue, but seemingly not as much of an issue as it once appeared to be. “I predict that

there will be less and less on this issue in the future, as people become more and more

neutral about it,” Abel Alves said [Alves 19]. Even in recent years, the debate has

slowed down, mainly because there are no school boards who bring up as much

controversy as what surrounded the topic only 5 years ago. State Boards of Education

can and will make their own decisions about the issue and its place in the public school

curricula, as they have in the past, but these decisions will be impacted by how other state

boards address the issue in their schools. The only definite way to determine what is

acceptable for instruction in public schools is a Supreme Court ruling on the issue. State

Boards will make their own decisions, but nothing will be set in stone until the issue is

raised to the decision of the Supreme Court.

4
 When discussing the issue between creationism and evolution in public schools

there are three different categories of beliefs to consider; the first being that creationism

and intelligent design must be part of the public school curriculum, but evolution does

not belong there.

The main argument against this belief is that creationism and intelligent design

are not actual sciences, but instead are religious beliefs that are subject to opinion and

cannot be tested by the scientific method [Antolin 8]. People against this belief argue

that students are in school to learn actual facts and scientific theories, not religious beliefs

that are subject to opinion and differ amongst students. Because creationism does not

include any scientific backing or evidence, it can’t be a part of any science curriculum

and needs to be saved for instruction in religious classes or private schools only; if

creationism is taught, the actual scientific qualities of evolution may be weeded out

altogether [National center for Science Education 18].

However, those who still agree with the belief that creationism must be taught in

public schools stand strong and pose their own arguments. Some believe that religious

people are so against evolution because if it were proven true, their religion would be

threatened and their beliefs would be nullified [Williams 7]. Regardless, their main

argument is that creationism and intelligent design concur with the majority of religious

beliefs and evolution should not conflict those beliefs [Johnston 14]. Creationists fear

that by teaching evolution, schools will make students question their faith. According to

some, faith is the backbone of a complete education and can benefit a student’s education

as a whole [Anderson 2]. By keeping faith in a student’s life, it is found that students will

learn more efficiently.

“Many faith communities partner with schools to provide tutoring, safe havens,

after-school programs, mentoring, and summer activities. Faith communities often

inspire their membership to volunteer in behalf of children, youth, and families in the

nation’s schools. In this way, community groups, businesses, family organizations, and

local government agencies join the partnership, resulting in a broad-based effort to help

5
educate children,” the former United States Department of Education reported [United

States Department of Education 11].

The other common belief surrounding the argument is that evolution is an actual

science, therefore, it must be taught in science classes [Zindler 17]. Creationism and

intelligent design do not have any scientific background to support their cause, so they

should not be part of the public school science curricula. Of course, the typical argument

to this is that the majority of students in public schools have beliefs that concur with

those of creationism or intelligent design, which alone justifies their place in public

schools. The opposition to this position claims that if students are forced to learn only

about evolution, it will begin to make them question their religious background and the

beliefs instilled in them from that background [Johnston 14].

Despite these claims, evolutionists and scientists hold strong with their argument.

They claim that because creationism and intelligent design are religious beliefs and ideals

rather than sciences, they should in no way be a part of the classroom. Even though

intelligent design attempts to incorporate some scientific information behind it, it is not

enough to be fully incorporated in public schools [Williams 7]. By teaching students

about evolution today, they can help discover more about it in the future and make way

for more scientific development

“What this does to science is it wastes a lot of time of scientists who could be

getting on with their work,” Professor Richard Dawkins said [van der Pool 22].

Additionally, if evolution is wiped from the science curricula because of religious

beliefs, than science will be affected as a whole. Other Scientific theories may be

questioned in the future and be subject to religious beliefs, keeping scientific discovery

from broadening. If students in our time can discover more about evolution today, then it

is probable that the information they learn now will help them contribute to scientific

discoveries about humans and their origin in the future.

The third solution to the debate between evolution and creationism in public

schools is that evolution, creationism, and intelligent design should all be included in the

curriculum in a respectable manner without favoring any specific beliefs [Diamond 27].
6
A specific case in which this has happened occurred in Utah. A teacher in Utah became

the state director of the “Utah 3R’s Project” of rights, responsibilities, and respect; the

program “affirms the right” to allow teachers to give lessons on religion within

educational policies and constitutional rights. The program was developed in 1997 in the

social sciences section of Utah’s curriculum [Fulton 6]. Many organizations in the

United States support this method, so long as it is done in a constitutional manner. The

First Amendment Center condones this practice, and offers answers to questions that

many teachers have on the issue; the First Amendment Center, or FAC, even goes as far

as giving guidance on what religions can be covered and how to go about teaching them.

The FAC deems that all religious views are acceptable for the classroom so long as they

are presented in an unbiased fashion [First Amendment Center 12].

The issue between the beliefs can be discussed and students can decide for

themselves what they choose to believe [Fraser 1]. According to Abel Alves, this sense

of neutrality is often not portrayed in the media, and its presence in the public eye could

help soften the debate between the two [Alves 19]. Because this option is a common

ground between the two core beliefs of the argument, it faces opposition from more than

one demographic. Extremists from either side of the argument have a problem with

scientific and religious coexistence in the classroom. Dr. Patrick Johnston, for instance,

does not support intelligent design although he is a fundamentalist Christian.

“I am convinced that the means employed by Christian conservatives to repel the

state-mandated atheism and humanism of our public education system is fundamentally

erroneous. We rightly abhor our public institutions teaching things we despise to our

children at our expense,” Johnston said.

Johnston believes that intelligent design is merely masking true Christian beliefs

and that Christians “must do something novel and defend Christian theism instead of

going out of your way to hide it” with intelligent design [Johnston 14].

For many, evolution is the only way. Because creationism isn’t a science, it does

not deserve the right to be taught alongside a scientific theory like evolution [Krauss 25].

Another main idea behind the debate is that other information that isn’t regarded as
7
science isn’t taught in science classes (English is kept in an English class, math is kept in

a math class, etc.), so it only makes sense for religious beliefs to be contained within

religious classes or private schools.

“As far as I’m aware, in no other field of science does this happen,” professor

Richard Dawkins said, when addressing the mixture of religion and biological science.

Even if intelligent design does have some scientific ideas behind it, it is more of a

pseudoscience with a religious idea driving it [Allen 23]. On the other hand, those in

favor of teaching intelligent design or creationism find that it is a science and must be

held in science classes [Inskeep 24]. Lawyers in favor of the teaching of intelligent

design, or creation science, argue that it is a constitutional right to do so in the classroom.

“Teachers have a first amendment right to freedom of speech and a first

amendment right to freedom of religion just like any other citizen,” Staver said [Staver

16].

Religious fanatics make the case that all education is in some way or another

centered on religion, and that religion must coincide with science. Religious people also

make the claim that intelligent design does, in fact, support the scientific method and has

potential to bring good to the classroom, and that students should be taught the flaws of

evolution (rather than the lack of scientific evidence in creationism [15].

Regardless of what evolution or religious extremists say, people who support the

presence of both in the classroom support their argument with multiple claims. They feel

that by teaching both topics side by side and in an unbiased manner, students can choose

for themselves what they wish to believe; furthermore, they can learn about the conflict

between creationism and evolution. Programs have been developed which enable

teachers to teach both topics while respecting students’ rights [Fraser 1]. Also, by being

unbiased and not teaching one side over the other, it will be much harder for anyone to

take offense. This solution to the evolution/creationism debate will also allow academic

freedom, rather than appealing to individual beliefs [Spellings 10].

Even among professionals, there is still a lack of agreement on the issue between

evolution and creationism. However, many professionals and experts can agree that
8
teaching students about the argument as a whole is the easiest way to address the issue

with the smallest chance of offending anyone [Sears 28]. This method is supported

because it will allow students to think for themselves and will preserve a maintained

sense of academic freedom in the classroom; students can learn about evolution as a

theory and creationism as a belief.

Some still believe, however, that teaching creationism or intelligent design is the

premier way to handle the issue [Staver 16]. These experts trust that students will be

forced to question their own beliefs in the classroom if evolution is taught. They have

created intelligent design as an alternative scientific explanation for the origin of life with

their own religious beliefs laced throughout the idea, and feel that it must be taught as

science.

Scientific professionals agree with the idea that evolution should be the only

scientific theory of the origin of man and that creationism, intelligent design, and other

religious ordeals should be nonexistent in the public school curricula. This is because

religion and the beliefs that follow it are not proven sciences or theories. Instead, they

are merely beliefs that have not been subject to scientific research. Professionals for

evolution feel that religion should be left out of schools and saved for a student’s

personal life; religion, also, should not affect anyone else’s beliefs, as it would if it were

part of the curricula Glazet [30]. Many scientists agree that with the birth of intelligent

design, creationists went from protecting their religious beliefs in the classroom to

promoting them throughout America as a whole [van der Pool 22].

The purpose of this essay was to cultivate information about the struggle between

evolution and creationism in American public schools, and address the ideas and beliefs

behind that struggle. Research was done in the areas of science, theology, government,

and the public school system for an accurate depiction of what is being done about this

subject from all fronts.

By examining the background of the confrontation between religious beliefs and

the theory of evolution, it is easy to understand the argument as it exists today. As we

know it, the issue stands as an obstacle for American youth, scientific discoveries, and
9
theology. The battle may rage on in the classroom for years to come, but a conclusion

and a settlement can be made. There are a multitude of resolutions to the argument: by

coming to an agreement that intelligent design is not science, or that creationism does not

belong in science classes, or if the theory of evolution is disproved, America and its

citizens will benefit. These events are only a small dose of the possibilities for an end to

the creationism/evolution debate.

With a critical analysis of all parties involved in the issue and the numerous

stances that can be held, conclusions can be derived and it is possible to understand why

the situation is what it is and what it may be in the future.

[1] Book

Fraser, James W. Between Church and State: Religion & Public Education in a
Multicultural America. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999.

Main Assertions

The main assertion is the best way to deal with religion in public schools by means of

studying the past. The different ways to deal with religion in public schools isn’t

reflective, but that a historical examination of how previous generations and cultures

handled the topic must be done. Fraser also makes the claim that the public school

system in the United States can survive if it builds tolerance and diversity. Fraser takes a

neutral stance on religion and public education, while showing the history of religion and

education and the questions that arise within the topic. Between Church and State:

Religion & Public Education in a Multicultural America works as a timeline for the

history of religion and public schooling, starting in 1789, when European colonials came

to North America to live out their own religion and to impose it on all other residents of

their colony. The text moves on to discuss Roman Catholics, literacy in the slave era,

and immigration from 1875 to 1925. After a brief history of religion and public
10
education in America, Fraser writes about congress’s role in the issue, the differences

between cultures, and changes to the Constitution.

Author Analysis

The School of Education at Northeastern University provides its students with a wide

range of options of concentration. The school offers programs for those seeking to be K-

12 teachers, administrators, as well as college administrators. The Schools of Education

goes about instructing students in a “professional and pragmatic” while offering a balance

between theories and exercises in the classroom. James W. Fraser served as a Professor

of History and Education and Dean of the School of Education at Northeastern

University. In addition to his teaching career, Fraser took the position of Pastor at the

Grace Church in East Boston, Massachusetts since 1986. Fraser has also written the

books Cooperative Ventures in Theological Education, Cremation: Is It Christian?, and

Schooling the Preachers.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Between Church and State: Religion and Public Education in a Multicultural America

was published in 1999, but its subject matter still applies to religion in public schools

today. Although Fraser is a pastor at Grace church in Boston, Massachusetts, he takes a

step back from his own faith and considers what must be done about the situation

concerning teaching creationism in the public classroom. Fraser takes the stance of

neither pro-creationism nor pro-evolution in public schools; instead, he merely seeks “an

American democracy that is both religiously tolerant and religiously informed.” Because

of his stance on the issue, the book serves as an unbiased work with reliable information,

including the history of the issue (up to the time of the book’s publishing) and what

issues may face the public schools in the future. Unfortunately, the book is unable to take

a definite stance on the issue. The work serves more as a collection of historical accounts

than a way for Fraser to make a point. Fraser makes some conclusions from the historical

evidence, but does not give a definitive opinion.

11
 Compare and Contrast

Fraser [1] takes the stance that generally approves of student’s rights while still

considering a higher being’s presence in the situation. He manages to give an analytical

history of the battle between creationism and evolution while keeping a relatively neutral

position on the issue at its entirety. According to Fraser’s work, teaching students about

different cultural views about creation can have a positive effect on multicultural

education. Fulton [6], Isaak [13], and Johnston [14] all see the benefit of teaching

students about creation. However, Zindler [17], Wilgoren [3], and Williams [7] generally

disagree, concluding that teaching creationism merely gets in the way of students

learning facts associated with evolution.

Use in Final Essay

I plan to use the source as a sort of historical reference on the topic, as it covers the

history of religion in education as far back as 1789. The prediction for what Fraser

foresees in the future also serves as a guide to make my own predictions about the future.

[2] Book

Anderson, Ronald D. Religion & Spirituality in the Public School Curriculum. New
York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 2004.

Main Assertions

The main assertion is that faith is the backbone of a complete education. Anderson states
12
that his argument is “based on understandings drawn from many different academic

areas”. Religion & Spirituality in the Public School Curriculum covers different aspects

and factors that affects religion in public schools, such as “the nature of learning,

conceptions of teaching, alternative views of the curriculum, the nature of various

academic subjects, the nature of religion, the varieties of spiritual experiences, the legal

foundations for both education and religion in this country, the nature of our culture and

many cultures, and more”. Anderson brings up his own beliefs to keep from having any

kind of bias; he also admits that a lot of what he writes about is idealist, but he explains

why; he believes that public education has a lot of promise. The book covers four case

studies involving the teaching of evolution, teaching literature and history, and character

education. These case studies offer approaches to teaching evolution, character-forming

programs, and other specific topics.

Author Analysis

The School of Education at The University of Colorado at Boulder is known for how well

it teaches its students how to be educators. The school is also nationally recognized for

it’s research methodology, educational policy, and classroom research. The School of

Education claims that it’s mission is that “faculty conduct research to improve

educational policies and classroom practice, prepare researchers at the doctoral level,

educate teachers at the undergraduate and masters levels in high quality programs, and

provide exceptional outreach services to our partner school districts and Colorado” and

has many priorities to help complete that mission. Ronald D. Anderson is a professor of

education at The University of Colorado at Boulder, specializing in science education.

The majority of Dr. Anderson’s research is focused toward policy and reform in science

education. He obtained his bachelor’s degree at the University of Wisconsin in 1959 and

went on to receive his doctorate in 1964 (also at the University of Wisconsin).

Compare and Contrast

Ronald Anderson takes wrote this book with the idea in mind that faith is the backbone of

a complete education, which concurs with the beliefs and writings of Riley [11], Staver
13
[16], and Johnston [14]. The main idea of their works is that creationism can belong in

public schools in a reasonable fashion. However, Wilgoren [3], Antolin [8], and Fulton

[6], appear to be in favor of evolutionary theory being taught in public schools rather than

creationism, or at least both of the ideas together.

Strengths and Weaknesses

The fact that the author takes the stance of a science educator that believes religion can

exist in public schools is a rarity, as compared to other sources of information. This book

can be seen as almost completely unbiased, especially because of the author’s

explanation of his own faith. The fact that Anderson is able to expose his own beliefs

alerts the reader to the realization that there is no hidden bias hidden between the

document’s ideas. While Anderson does claim that his ideas for religion in the public

school are ideal, it lacks historical evidence on the topic and how the issue stands because

of it’s less than ideal past. Anderson makes up for this, however, by including four in-

depth case studies about religion in the public school system.

Use in Final Essay

This source will be used to portray a viewpoint of those who are for the presence of

religion in public schools.

14
[3] General Periodical

Wilgoren, Jodi. “Politicized Scholars Put Evolution on the Defensive.” The New York
Times. Aug. 21, 2005. Available from
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/national/21evolve.html?_r=2&oref=
slogin&oref=slogin. Internet: Accessed Sep. 14, 2008

Main Assertions

The main assertion is that public schools should take a kind of “middle ground” and teach

about the controversy behind religion in public schools. Teaching about the controversy

would give students an opportunity to choose for themselves what they believe and rather

than making it a debate between science and religion, the issue would pertain more to

academic freedom. The article covers the Discovery Institute organization in detail,

giving information on how much money they spend on research and fellowships, the

institute’s origins, and even the support they receive from religious groups. The

Discovery Institute spends anywhere between $5,000 and $60,000 a year on fifty

researchers associated with the group. Religious backers of the institute provide yearly

grants and gifts that totaled to $4.1 million in 2003 from a minimum of 22 foundations.

About $9.3 million has been spent on research since 1996.

Author Analysis

Jodi Wilgoren, who is now known as Jodi Rudoren (after marriage), has been The New

York Times editor of regional news since the fall of 2006. Her areas of coverage include

New Jersey, Long Island, Connecticut, and northern New York. She also worked as a

national education correspondent in New York before moving to Chicago, a title which

gives her the authority and background to report on such topics as religion in American
15
public schools. The New York Times Co. is a multimedia company in New York City.

The company’s self-stated main purpose is to improve society by “creating, collecting

and distributing high-quality news, information and entertainment.” The company was

founded in 1851. Since its establishment, it has owned The New York Times, the

International Herald, and the Boston Globe newspapers, as well as 16 other newspapers,

some of which are distributed internationally) and, roughly, 50 web sites. President and

CEO Janet L. Robinson and Chairman Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. lead the company. Because

of the vastness of the company and its partners in journalism and the media, The New

York Times Co. is most definitely unbiased towards controversial topics, including

religion in the public school system.

Strengths and Weaknesses

The information presented in this source is very useful because it is relatively unbiased.

It does not focus on only teaching evolution or only teaching creationism and intelligent

design in the public classroom. The article covers the impact of the Discovery Institute’s

Center for Science and Culture on the debate between the two beliefs; the institute leans

toward teaching creationism. The article was also written very recently (in 2005),

allowing it to give pertinent information that can continue to be useful today.

Unfortunately, the document, as a whole, covers only the Discovery Institute’s opinions

and impact on the debate, not what is being done about the debate and differences

between evolution and creationism in public classrooms. However, because of the

subject matter in the article, it successfully provides background information on the topic

as a whole.

Compare and Contrast

Wilgoren’s belief that teaching about the controversy behind religion being taught in

public schools can serve as a type of middle ground concurs with Fulton [6], the 88th

Congress [9], and Spellings [10]. The four compliment each other by taking a middle

ground while writing about the issue. If any bias is evident, it is toward the cooperation

of both studies in schools. However, Antolin [8] sides with the belief that evolution,
16
rather than religion, must be taught in public schools; there can be no middle ground.

Similarly, Johnston [14] and Anderson [2] take the side of creationism in public schools.

The document does not focus on only teaching evolution or only teaching creationism

and intelligent design in the public classroom. The article covers the impact of the

Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture on the debate between the two

beliefs; the Institute leans toward teaching creationism. The article was also written very

recently (in 2005), allowing it to give pertinent information that can continue to be useful

today. Unfortunately, the document, as a majority, covers only the Discovery Institute’s

opinions and impact on the debate, not what is being done about the debate and

differences between evolution and creationism in public classrooms. However, because

of the subject matter in the article, it successfully provides background information on the

topic as a whole.

Use in final Essay

The source will be used as a demonstration of how both evolution and creationism can

belong in the classroom together.

[4] General Periodical

Slevin, Peter. “Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens.” The Washington Post. March
14, 2005. Available from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/articles/A32444-2005Mar13.html. Internet: Accessed Sep. 14, 2008.

Main Assertion

The main assertion is that religion in public schools has different in affects different

states. As of March 15, 2005 (when the article was written), “policymakers” in 19 states

were considering the options to decide what theories should be taught in public schools.

The debate between what to teach is powered by supporters of evolution and advocates of

creationism and intelligent design. Debates between the two are occurring on not only

local levels, but state levels as well. Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, California, Ohio,

Minnesota, and New Mexico have passed bills that enable teachers to challenge the

17
evolutionary theory in their lessons. Kansas ‘s Board of Education stands out the most,

however, as it is trying to completely revise teaching standards. The conservative

members of the board introduced multiple “scientific hearings” to speak about evolution.

The article also reveals a gritty view of the argument (or war, to some) by portraying how

fundamentalist Christians feel about the issue. Many are hoping for the death of

liberalism; something plausible if enough people start doubting the theory of evolution.

Author Analysis

Peter Slevin is a staff writer for the Washington Post, with published articles dating back

to the summer of 2006. Slevin’s contributions to the Washington Post include articles

pertaining to topics such as the current presidential election, America’s war against terror,

and many, many other current event articles that cover national and international news.

Slevin’s diversified array of published articles and topics proves that he is an unbiased

source, but may be relatively unknowledgeable about the relationship between religion

and public schools. The Washington Post Co. is owned and operated by Chairman and

CEO Donald E. Graham. The company’s primary goal is to produce the best journalistic

sources possible, including magazines, newspapers, and television programs. The

company also takes pride in its educational programs as well. The Washington Post Co.

owns major media outlets, such as The Washington Post, Newsweek, and Slate magazine,

as well as Kaplan Inc., a business focused on education. The Washington Post Co.’s

involvement in education, which is their most rapidly growing business, makes the

company’s media outlets a reliable source for educational news and information.

Strengths and Weaknesses

As of March 15, 2005 (when the article was written), “policymakers” in 19 states were

considering the options to decide what theories should be taught in public schools. This

document is also very useful because of how recently it was made. The fact that it was

produced in 2005 justifies the use of the information it provides. The work is very

beneficial because it discusses how the debate between creationism and evolution in
18
public schools is being tried and debated throughout multiple states in the US.

Unfortunately, Indiana is not one of those states. If more information on the debate was

present in the article, it would bring a new kind of strength to the paper. A reliable

account of the debate in Indiana would provide even more relevant information.

Kansas’s board of education is discussed the most, which can give some kind of an idea

as to how Indiana’s board of education would cover the argument between creationism

and evolution in public schools.

Compare and Contrast

Slevin [4] keeps a neutral status while reporting about the battle between creationism and

evolution and their place in the public school system. The primary topic of his report,

however, center their focus on that of those in favor of creationism and intelligent design

over evolution. Slevin [4] can most be compared with Davis [5], Isaak [13], and

Spellings [10] in that while creationism and intelligent design, the main idea of the article

is not to choose either side of the argument; the source is merely used to expose the

readers to the argument and provide information about it. However, the National Center

for Science Education [18], Johnston [14], and Wilgoren [3] all take the apparent side of

evolution, and have more of a tendency to keep from being neutral. The three agree that

evolutionists must fight to keep religion out of the school curricula.

Use In Final Essay

I plan to use the source as a base for information about the feelings of those for the

teaching of creationism or intelligent design. By using Slevin’s information, a valuable

outlook on the creationist’s point of view can be presented in the final essay. His

dissection of the debate itself can also serve to be very useful.

19
[5] General Periodical

Davis, Patty. “Evolution-creation debate grows louder with Kansas controversy.”

Cable News Network. March 8, 2000. Available from
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/03/08/creationism.vs.evolution/

Main Assertion

The main assertion is that the controversy in Kansas regarding evolution’s place in the

classroom has spread across the nation. Different ideas are brought into the equation; one

stating that evolution is not a theory, but a fact, as stated by a Kansas high school biology

teacher. The other, as posed by a member of the Kansas Board of Education, suggests

that students should be taught both, allowing them to decide their own beliefs on

evolution, creationism, and intelligent design. Sixty-eight percent of surveyed Americans

prefer that both creationism and evolution be taught in public schools. Forty percent

were in favor of completely dropping evolution from school curriculum, only to replace it

with the idea of creation as it is in the bible. To further assess how the debate has spread

across the nation, the article covers how the debate is being handled in other parts of the

United States; Arizona’s legislature contemplated making teachers provide evidence

supporting and invalidating the evolution theory.

Author Analysis

Patty Davis works as a general assignment correspondent for CNN in Washington D.C.

Davis’s career with CNN began in 1984, where she started as an assignment editor in the

network’s New York Bureau. Since then, Davis has reported on a vast array of current

event topics, including the Kosovo crisis of 1999, the homerun race between baseball

players Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire, presidential campaigns, and Hurricane Floyd’s

effect on North Carolina in 1999. Because of the different topics Davis has covered in

her career and her background in journalism, Davis can be trusted as an unbiased source

of information on the coverage of creationism and evolution being taught in public

20
schools. The Cable News Network, most commonly referred to as CNN, is a television

and Internet news network based in Atlanta, Georgia. CNN is owned by parent company

Time Warner Inc. and functions as a news media source that functions round-the-clock.

CNN follows Time Warner Inc.’s example of maintaining its values; creativity,

teamwork, customer focus, integrity, responsibility, and multiple others are the values

commonly focused on by the company. Time Warner Inc. is operated by President and

CEO Jeff Bewkes.

Strengths and Weaknesses

The main assertion covers the controversy in Kansas and how it spread across the nation.

The article was published in early 2000 and provided pertinent information for that time.

The article still works as an example as to how creationism vs. evolution in public

schools has affected the United States, but the actual content of the article was most

important at the time it was published; the outcome of the debate in Kansas has long been

over. However, the author’s neutral standing on the issue at hand provides unbiased,

reliable information on the topic. The article also presents the opinions of specific

individuals on the topic. Each interview is with someone who believes in either side of

the argument, which adds depth to the article and makes it very valuable. Other pieces of

data and random facts or statements separate the article from others. While many sides of

the argument are discussed well, they could be covered in even more detail.

Unfortunately, the article is relatively short, however the information given is straight and

to the point, making it easy to read.

Compare and Contrast

Davis [5] takes into account the fact that most Americans are in favor of more religiously

centered teaching in public schools. Despite this fact, the article she has written appears

to take the side of those in favor of evolutionary theory’s presence in the classroom. Her

article takes the side of those who find evolution to be a fact and those who would want

to have students make up their own mind on the issue. Wilgoren [3], Fraser [1], and
21
Williams [7] also take the side of evolution and favor its existence in public schools.

Despite that fact, the 88th Congress [9], Spellings [10], and Anderson [2] defy their

beliefs by siding with those in favor of religion in public schools. By generally declaring

that they find benefit in religion as part of a learning child’s life, they disagree with Davis

[5] and those in compliance with her.

Use In Final Essay

Davis’s report of how evolution is fighting to exist in public schools serves as supporting

evidence for those in favor of evolution and it’s existence in the public school curricula.

It will be used to contrast the beliefs of those in favor of creationism.

[6] General Periodical

Fulton, Ben. “Religion can be discussed with respect in school.” The Salt Lake
Tribune. Aug. 9, 2008. Available from
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?do
cLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4580877730&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&s
tartDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4580877745&cisb=22_T4580877744&tre
eMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=169235&docNo=1. Internet: Accessed Sep. 14,
2008.

Main Assertion

The main assertion is that religious topics must be covered in a respectful manner. A

teacher in Utah became the state director of the “Utah 3R’s Project” of rights,

responsibilities, and respect; the program “affirms the right” to allow teachers to give

lessons on religion within educational policies and constitutional rights. The program

was developed in 1997 in the social sciences section of Utah’s curriculum. The public

schools are a place to enable students to respect each other, and the 3R’s Project helps

support that, according to the senior scholar in the First Amendment Center and co-

creator of the 3R’s Project, Charles C. Haynes. The program helps build civic character

and allows for a moral lesson without having to use religion as a primary element. One

practice the program utilizes asks students to write their own constitutions and debate

topics according to the First Amendment.

22
 Author Analysis

Ben Fulton is a reporter for the Salt Lake Tribune, and has published many articles for

the paper. His articles have little to no hint of any opinion as to what he is reporting, and

the majority of his articles pertain to schools or children in the paper’s circulation area.

Because of his experience in reporting on schooling issues in his area, Fulton serves as a

reliable source of information pertaining to religion in public schools. The Salt Lake

Tribune is owned by the Media News Group, a corporation located in the western United

States, whose corporate mission is “to be the leading provider of local news, information

and services in our strategically located markets by continually expanding and leveraging

our news gathering resources. The group’s weekly and Sunday newspapers have a

combined circulation between 2.4 and 2.7 million.

Strengths and Weaknesses

The document covers a specific case in which a teacher from Utah became the director of

the “Utah 3R’s Project” of rights, responsibilities, and respect. A valuable and specific

instance of how religion can exist in the public classroom is present in the article, which

can be viewed as both a strength and a weakness. It is beneficial because it provides a

specific example to back the idea that religion can exist in public schools. However, it is

unfortunate that that is all it can be used as. The article also takes the side of creationism

in public schools, alongside teaching evolution, which makes it somewhat biased. Both

sides are discussed, but it could be more neutral while confronting the topic at hand.

Because the work was printed in 1997, it also may not be a relatable source, due to its

age. However, it does supply yet another useful example as to how religion and

evolution can be confronted and discussed in the public school system across America.

Compare and Contrast

23
A teacher in Utah became the state director of the “Utah 3R’s Project” of rights,

responsibilities, and respect; the program “affirms the right” to allow teachers to give

lessons on religion within educational policies and constitutional rights. The program

was developed in 1997 in the social sciences section of Utah’s curriculum. Fulton [6],

like Wilgoren [3], the 88th Congress [9], and Spellings [10], takes the stance that religion

can be taught in public schools, so long as it is not opinionated and coexists with

evolutionary theory in the classroom. On the other hand, Antolin [8], Johnston [14], and

Anderson [2] decide that the two cannot exist in the public school system together.

Johnston even goes so far as to say that “as long as the judiciary declares public

education atheistic by virtue of the mythical separation of church and state, public

education is ‘against Christ.’” Johnston, among others, is especially against the lack of

religion in public schools.

Use In Final Essay

The source will be used as an example as to how religion can be a part of the public

school curriculum without effecting students’ rights. By using the specific example in

the periodical, a definite argument can be made for those in favor of creationism in public

schools.

[7] Scholarly Journal

Williams, Robert Charles. Arizona State University. “Scientific Creationism: An

Exegesis for a Religious Doctrine.” 1983. Available from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/676034?&Search=yes&term=schools&term=Creationi
sm&term=public&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery
%3DCreationism%2Bin%2Bpublic%2Bschools%26x%3D0%26y%3D0%26wc%
3Don&item=1&ttl=834&returnArticleService=show. Article. Internet: Accessed
Sept. 28, 2008.

Main Assertion

24
The main assertion is scientific creationism is undoubtedly a religious doctrine, and its

primary purpose is to defend and glorify Jesus Christ as Lord and creator of man. After

dissecting the works of Henry M. Morris, the Director of the Institute for Creation

Research in 1983, Williams addresses the attacks made upon evolutionists and why they

appeared so unprepared. Williams also uses the journal to determine if creationism can

be considered a scientific method by its origins, rather than a supporting argument for

evolutionists against creationism. Williams deducts that the main differences between

evolutionary theory and creationism are limited to supernaturalistic, externally directed,

purposive, and completed. He goes on to continue to dissect, review, and question the

works of Morris, and moves forward to say that creation science is indeed not a science

because it does not meet the five essential characteristics defined by Judge Overton in the

Arkansas Act 590 case of 1982; science must be guided by natural law, explanatory by

reference to natural law, testable against the empirical world, had tentative conclusions,

and is falsifiable. Williams also identifies why those with creationist beliefs are so

against evolution: if evolution is proven to be true, in turn proving creationism to be

false, their religion would be threatened and their beliefs would be nullified.

Author Analysis

Robert Charles Williams has produced many scholarly works, most of which pertain to

anthropology, biology, and even genetics. His work provides accurate information on the

issue of religion in public schools, but at times, can be biased because of his educational

background. The Arizona State University Department of Anthropology, or the School of

Human Evolution and Social Change, has a wide array of trained faculty, including

anthropologists, mathematicians, geographers, economists, and many others. The

department’s primary focus is not to choose sides between religion and science, but more

so to analyze the differences between the two, among many, many other things.

Strengths and Weaknesses

The main assertion is that scientific creationism is a religious doctrine, not a scientific
25
ordeal. The author takes the side of common scientists and evolutionists and explains the

origin of scientific creationism and how it is not an actual science. Williams also states

that, “by teaching scientific creationism in public schools the students are being

proselytized and prepared for a potential conversion to fundamental Christianity,” and

opposes it’s teaching in public schools for that reason. The differences between scientific

creationism and scientific theories are covered in their entirety, giving a very clear,

concise definition of the two terms and what they entail. However, the document is very

biased toward the argument against teaching creationism and religion in public schools.

It does not analyze the viewpoint of those in favor of teaching creationism in public

institutions, but this can also be an advantage, as other works have taken this side. The

source serves as a way to equalize the ideas that will be represented as a whole.

Compare and Contrast

Williams [7] takes the stance of those in favor of evolution’s place in the public school

curriculum. Additionally, Williams [7] does not even believe that scientific creationism

and intelligent design are sciences at all, furthermore proving that they do not belong in

the public school science curriculum. Zindler [17], the National Center for Science

Education [18], and van der Pool [22] concur with Williams’ [7] assertions and findings.

On the other hand, those who are in favor of the teaching of creationism as a science, or

at least being taught alongside evolution, find that teaching creationism or intelligent

design can hold many benefits for students. The United States Department of Education

[11], Fulton [6], and The First Amendment Center [12] all agree with this belief;

guidance on how to approach the topic in schools is also provided by these sources

alongside specific cases in which religion is beneficial.

Use in Final Essay

This source will be used to display the feelings of those against the teaching of

creationism and evolution in public schools. Williams provides a sturdy backbone for

26
those in favor of evolution theory’s lessons in the public classroom and can provide

expert information on the topic.

[8] Scholarly Journal

Antolin, Michael F. Society for the Study of Evolution. “Perspective: Evolution's

Struggle for Existence in America's Public Schools.” 2001. Available from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2680248?&Search=yes&term=schools&term=Creationi
sm&term=public&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery
%3DCreationism%2Bin%2Bpublic%2Bschools%26x%3D0%26y%3D0%26wc%3
Don&item=2&ttl=834&returnArticleService=showArticle. Internet: Accessed Sept.
28, 2008.

Main Assertions

The main assertion is that it is necessary to teach evolutionary theory in public schools

because it is beneficial for not only students, but teachers as well. The document is

strongly positioned towards the teaching of evolution in public schools, and the lack

thereof creationism. The document presents many valid arguments as to why evolution

should be taught in public schools, and even provides rebuttals to many creationist

arguments. The document also goes on to elaborate on how evolutionary training is

important for science as a whole— not just in an institutional setting. Outlines are made

of typical creationist arguments posed by teachers, students, parents, and many others to

achieve an idea of why people are fighting for creationism in public schools in the first

place. A specific instance of the battle between creationism vs. evolution in public

schools was covered as well, including background on the issue and the resolution that

was reached.

Author Analysis

Michael F. Antolin is a professor and assistant chairman of the CSU Department of

27
Biology and has held these positions since 2004. Previous to these positions, Antolin had

been an assistant professor in the department of biology since 1998. His background in

biology gives him more than enough reason to write in favor of evolution, as compared to

creationism or intelligent design. As a professor of biology, Antolin serves as a valuable

source for information about evolution and a typical scientist’s take on the issue at hand.

However, Antolin’s opinions and bias toward evolution may affect his credibility to some

point. The Colorado State University Department of Biology is ranked fifth in the nation.

The department describes itself as “an interdisciplinary group of faculty with research

interests that vary from studies of global ecological change….” As a department of

science, the CSU Department of Biology is biased toward teaching evolution, not

creationism, in public institutions and focus more on science-based learning rather than

faith-based.

Strengths and Weaknesses

While the document does present many valid arguments and points, it is a bit outdated

and may not apply as directly today as it did in 2001, when it was originally published.

On the other hand, the information in this work is relatively pertinent compared to how

long the debate between evolution and creationism in public schools has been going on.

The Colorado State University Department of Biology is ranked 5th in the nation for

universities with biology programs. The department describes itself as “an

interdisciplinary group of faculty with research interests that vary from studies of global

ecological change….” As a department of science, the CSU Department of Biology is

biased toward teaching evolution- not creationism- in public institutions and focus more

on science-based learning rather than faith-based.

Compare and Contrast

While writing this journal, Antolin took the stance of those in favor of evolution being
28
taught in public schools and withstanding the attacks of those against it in the public

school system. His views, as a majority, coincide with Wilgoren [3], Spellings [10], and

Fulton [6]. The group’s views and ideas in their works are basically the same in that they

focus on the benefit of having evolution in public schools. On the other hand, Riley [11]

Anderson [2], and Staver [16] take the approach of writing about the benefits of having

creationism in public schools. While their views do not necessarily give the depiction

that they are against evolution, they are very much for creationism.

Use in Final Essay

The source will be used in the body of the paper to represent an evolutionist’s point of

view.

[9] Government Document

88th Congress, 2nd Session. Proposed Amendments to the Constitution Relating to School
Prayers, Bible Readings, Etc.: A Staff Study for the Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1964.

Main Assertions

The main assertion is the different proposed amendments to the United States

Constitution regarding religion in schools for the House of Representatives and the

Committee on the Judiciary. The 88th Congress covered many different proposed

amendments to the Constitution so that religion could be present in public schools

without affecting the Constitutional rights of children. The Congress applies the first

29
amendment to all of its propositions. Of the 146 resolutions (which were pending at the

time of publishing), there was a total of 35 different ways for the conflict to be resolved,

which had therefore been sorted into seven different types. These types include the

permission of prayers in public schools, the authorization of bible readings and prayers,

the authorization of prayers in schools and other public places, the ability to pray and

study the Bible in public schools and places, the permission of the Regents’ prayer in any

one state, the ability to reference belief in God in any governmental or public document,

or the permission of prayers, Bible readings, and the belief in God in public schools,

places, and government issues.

Author Analysis

The 88th Congress of the United States was in session from January 3, 1963 to January 3,

1965, first during former President Lyndon Johnson’s administration and then John F.

Kennedy’s administration. Meeting in Washington DC with a democratic majority, the

88th Congress legislated issues such as the Food Stamp Act, the Economic Opportunity

Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Military construction Authorization Act, and the

Department of Defense Appropriations Act.

Strengths and Weaknesses

As restated in this book, the Constitution of the United States of America states that

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the

free exercise thereof…” Therefore, this book discusses the various ways to amend the

constitution while maintaining the first amendment. This book’s strengths include the

different amendment proposals, including the permission of prayer in public schools, the

authorization of bible reading as well as prayers in public institutions, the allowance of

prayer and Bible reading in public schools and other public places, and the permission of
30
prayers, Bible reading, and “references to belief in or reliance on God in public schools

or other public places, and in governmental matters.” These proposed amendments, as

well as many others, are covered thoroughly throughout the rest of the document.

However, because the book was published in 1964, its contents may not be as pertinent

information now as when the book was originally published. The proposed amendments

also seem to favor the teaching of creationism in public schools and the allowance of

religion in communities as a whole. Also, because the amendments in this document are

only proposed, there is no way to tell the outcome of these propositions and how they

may have affected America today.

Compare and Contrast

The 88th Congress [9] did not take into account those in favor of evolution while making,

labeling, and categorizing their propositions to the Constitution. Therefore, their

propositions can more than generally side with the views of those in favor of creationism,

intelligent design, and religion as a whole in public schools. These propositions move

onward from merely classrooms, and are made to apply to other public places as well;

even governmental issues are discussed with the possibility of applying religion in some

way. In turn, it can be acceptable to state that the 88th Congress [9] is in favor of the

teaching of creationism in public schools, which concurs with the beliefs of Fulton [6],

Spellings [10], and Matthews [15]. Those in defiance of this belief are amongst Zindler

[17], Antolin [8], and Williams [7], and generally side with the claim that evolution

belongs in the public school science curricula more so than creationism.

Use In Final Essay

The proposed amendments to the Constitution by the 88th Congress will be used to show

not only the beliefs of those in favor of religion in public schools, but their effect on the

government and how the government handled the battle between creationism and

evolution before it even became a battle.

31
[10] Government Document

Spellings, Margaret. “Guidance on Constitutionally Protected prayer in Public

Elementary and secondary schools”. Ed.gov. Available from
http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/religionandschools/prayer_guidance.html.

Main Assertion

The main assertion is to supply state and local education agencies, as well as the public,

with information about laws regulating religion in public schools, and to clarify that

religion in public schools is legally protected. The document goes on to supply an

overview of governing principles by the constitution, the first amendment, and simply

states that the issue about religion in public schools is very similar to that of religious

expression anywhere else. However, teachers may not lead their classes in prayer, prayer

cannot be included in events funded and sponsored by the school, or persuade students

into any certain religious activities. Different situations are covered by the document,

such as prayer during instruction, organized prayer groups, and how they apply to

teachers, administrators, and other employees of the school.

Author Analysis

Margaret Spellings is currently the United States Secretary of Education; the first

Secretary of Education to have children in school during her time in office. Spellings

supports and enforces the No Child Left Behind Act, and works to make education in

America more “innovative and responsive.” While working as Assistant to the president

for Domestic Policy, Spellings addressed issues such as health care, immigration,

housing, and many others. The United States Department of Education was created in

1980 to serve as an agency to support the achievements of American students, provide an

equal opportunity to learn for all Americans, and to help America compete with the rest

of the world’s educations. The Department of Education dedicates its time to create

policies distributing financial aid for education, collecting and analyzing research on

32
American public schools, bringing attention to important educational topics, and giving

everyone an opportunity to learn.

Strengths and Weaknesses

The main assertion is guidance in dealing with situations pertaining to constitutionally

protected prayer in public institutions. The guide is written by the Secretary of Education,

Margaret Spellings, who serves as a direct and reliable source for public education

information. The guidance provides clarification of students’ rights pertaining to prayer

in public schools. The document was created on Feb. 7, 2003 (during the presidency of

Republican George W. Bush), making it a recent and relevant source that has some effect

on schooling today. On the other hand, the document takes a neutral stance on whether

or not creationism, intelligent design, or the evolutionary theory should be taught in

public institutions. While this document does provide valuable information, it does not

choose either side of the argument as to whether or not creationism should be taught in

public schools.

Compare and Contrast

Spellings [10] takes a generally neutral stance on the battle between evolution and

creationism in public schools by rarely addressing evolution in her report. Instead of

writing about the issue going on between the two, her document merely tries to inform

public school teachers, administrators, parents, and others about the rights concerning

religion granted to them via the constitution. Spellings [10] does not choose either side

of the argument, but simply addresses how religion is constitutionally legal in public

schools; a belief that agrees with Fulton [6], the United States Department of Education

[11], and the First Amendment Center [12]. However, there are those who disagree with

Spellings [10] and company, claiming that the presence of religion affects the quality of

learning in public schools, and therefore, it does not belong. This belief is common

amongst Zindler [17], Allen [23], and Krauss [25].

33
 Use In Final Essay

Spellings’ report will be used to represent the availability of a balance between religion

and science in public schools without offending anyone or threatening their first

amendment rights. The report will also represent the status of those in favor of the

presence of both creationism and evolution in public schools.

[11] Government Document

United States Department of Education. “How Faith Communities Support Children’s

Learning in Public Schools.” Report. December 1999. Available from
www.ed.gov/inits/religionandschools/faith-support.pdf. Internet: Accessed Sep.
29 2008.

Main Assertions

The main assertion is that communities of faith are frequently involved in the education

of children in their communities; therefore, the involvement of these communities

supports children’s learning experiences. The document discusses the benefits of having

religious communities involved in a child’s learning experience, including after-school

programs, school safety, college planning, and reading. Each section gives a detailed

example and reason as to why and how religion can benefit public schools. The

examples themselves are taken from different parts of the United States.

Congress established the United States Department of Education in 1980. The primary

mission of the Department of Education is to help assure the commitment of the

government to allow an equal opportunity to learn for everyone, work with parents,
34
teachers, administrators, and students to better the quality of American education, and to

improve the management and coordination of programs put on by the Federal

Government. The Department of Education, also known simply as “ED”, defines it’s

specific purpose as “… the agency of the federal government that establishes policy for,

administers, and coordinates most federal assistance to education.”

Author Analysis

Richard W. Riley, the primary author of this document and US Secretary of Education at

the time of its publishing, is a member of the democratic party and also served as the

Governor of South Carolina. Riley is also the founder of The Richard W. Riley Institute

of Government, Politics, and Public Leadership at Furman University. As the Secretary

of Education, Riley and his staff at the ED serve as a credible source pertaining to the

argument between creationism and evolution in public schools. Their neutrality on the

topic is evident, but they do provide the benefits of having religious involvement in a

child’s education. The stance taken in the document is able to explain the benefits of

faith communities in a child’s learning without trying to deny evolutionary theory’s place

in the public school system.

Strengths and Weaknesses

The authors of the document were, at the time, members of the US Department of

Education, whom provided valuable opinions and information from the executive level of

education. The US Secretary of Education states, “…public schools should not be the

public space for a war on values.” And this theme is carried throughout the entire work;

keeping a neutral stance on whether or not creationism, evolution theory, or intelligent

design should be taught in public classrooms. The document, however, does support the

presence of faith-based communities in a child’s learning. Because of the document’s

information, yet it will still serve as a useful source of information.

35
 Compare and Contrast

Riley, while representing the US Department of Education, wrote this report with the

mentality that it is beneficial for children to have faith in their lives as another aspect to

provide them with the best possible education. In that respect, Anderson [2], Staver [16],

Johnson [14] agree with Riley’s recommendations and examples of how faith helps

education. However, Wilgoren [3], Fulton [6], and Spellings [10] serve as the opposition

to Riley’s writings, stating that evolution must continue to fight to make itself a topic in

the public school curriculum.

Use in Final Essay

The source will be used to provide supporting information about the presence of religion

in the public school system and why it helps a student’s ability to learn.

[12] Government Document

First Amendment Center. “A Teacher’s Guide to Religion in the Public Schools.” Report.
Nov. 2001. Available from
www.firstamendmentcenter.org/PDF/teachersguide.PDF. Internet: accessed Sep.
26, 2008.

36
 Main Assertions

The main assertion is that teachers can effectively discuss religion in public schools while

maintaining the rights upheld by the first amendment and providing an education for

students if the premier points of this document are followed. The document also serves

to give teachers an understanding of the religious beliefs and issues that may arise in the

classroom. More information follows, giving questions that are commonly asked by

teachers when faced with a religious issue in the classroom and through answers on how

that issue can be handled or resolved. Topics include why religion should be a part of the

curriculum, whether or not religious textbooks are in standards or textbooks, how the

teachers’ religious beliefs come into play during instruction, and whether or not students

can express their religious beliefs in the classroom.

Author Analysis

The First Amendment Center works to defend and maintain the freedoms granted to

Americans by the first amendment by informing and educating Americans about the first

amendment. The First Amendment Center (or FAC) holds offices in Nashville,

Tennessee and Washington DC, where it is affiliated with the Vanderbilt University

Institute for Public Policy Studies. The FAC was founded by John Seigenthaler in 1991,

and has since been the official resource for news and issues relating to the first

amendment.

Strengths and Weaknesses

The guide covers the basic aspects of how to instruct students about religion without

affecting constitutional rights or offending anyone. The guide is obviously in favor of the

teaching of religion in public schools, but in a respectable, responsible, and inoffensive

manner. The guide specifically covers the best way to teach religion in the best way to

remain in compliance with the United States Constitution. A common American

teacher’s views and best interests are the focus of the article, giving a different

perspective on the topic at hand. By seeing the teachers’ point of view rather than the

37
students’, it is possible to view the debate between creationism and evolutionism in

public schools from many different perspectives. Unfortunately, the article does not

focus solely on the argument between evolution and creationism, but instead provides a

background and alternatives to the issue that do not raise a debate. The guide does seem,

however, to be slightly more biased toward creationism in public schools, but the opinion

is not very strong in the writing itself.

Compare and Contrast

The First Amendment Center [12] gives teachers guidance on how to address religion in

the public classroom. Therefore, the general stance of the guide is one of tolerance on

both sides, while respecting the fist amendment rights of students, parents, teachers, and

other school employees alike. Those who agree with this stance are among the likes of

the 88th Congress [9], Staver [16], and Boyle [24]. Both creationists and evolutionists

have disagreed with the claims made by the FAC, and would prefer to have one subject

or the other, such as Johnston [14], Zindler [17], and Williams [7].

Use In Final Essay

This source will be used to represent the government’s overall stance on the issue

between creationism and evolution and support the tolerance side of the argument. Its

information can also help find solutions to the conflict.

38
[13] Institutional Source

Isaak, Mark. The TalkOrigins Archive. “What is Creationism?” 2000. Available from
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html. Internet: Accessed Oct. 5, 2008.

Main Assertions

The main assertion is that there are many different types of creationist beliefs and that

they should be differentiated to fully understand the ideas behind the belief. Isaak gives a

brief discussion of the various different types of creationism. Examples of different

creationists are also given, such as “flat-earthers,” who believe that the earth is actually

flat and encompassed by a solid dome, geocentrists, who believe that the universe

revolves around the earth, rather than the sun. Other forms of creationism, such as young

earth and flat earth creationism differ greatly from others, including day age and gap

creationism. Isaak admits that he cannot cover the different forms in great detail because

there is so much history behind them, but that a small idea of certain types can

significantly portray the fact that they are different and that creationism is a dynamic

belief system. Non-Christian creationism is also covered in the document with

supporting information.

Author Analysis

Mark Isaak is a regular writer for the TalkOrigins information group. He writes articles

about the creationism/evolutionism argument raging in America and many other topics,

including mythology and philosophy. The majority of his work is in favor of

evolutionary theory, and can typically serve as supporting information for the evolutionist
39
argument, rather than criticism of the creationist views. The TalkOrigins Archive is an

online collection of stories and articles written by typical, mainstream scientists. The

Archive was created in 1994 with the purpose of bringing information to scientists and

citizens alike.

Strengths and Weaknesses

The source itself is portrayed as a detailed look into the various beliefs that fall under the

broad category of “creationism”. While the information in the source can be factual, it

does hold room for plenty of opinion, which is somewhat biased towards evolution, and

is almost anti-creationist. However, the source does give insight to the various forms of

creationism by outlining the specific beliefs for each section and differentiating them

from the others. A thorough analysis of each form of creationism was obviously

completed before writing about them. Additionally, Isaak’s document can be extremely

biased; his own thoughts and ideas can be seen strewn throughout the actual factual

information.

Compare and Contrast

Isaak’s [13] work is very different from the others because rather than choosing a

definitive side of the argument between evolution and creationism, the document simply

relays information to the reader without much of an opinion. The essay itself can be seen

as more of a summary of creationist beliefs than a supporting argument for either

evolution or creation. Allen [23], Boyle [24], and Krauss [25] take a similar approach to

the issue at hand; unbiased information is simply portrayed without giving any hint of

opinion. These articles are much different from those written by Zindler [17], Williams

[7], and Antolin [8], who take a much more opinionated approach to their method of

giving information about evolution.

Use in Final Essay

This source will be used to give more information about creationist beliefs as a whole and
40
render the various beliefs about creationism. Other forms of creationism than the

Christian view can be explained and different cultural beliefs will be discussed.

[14] Institutional Source

Johnston, Patrick. RightRemedy.org. “’Intelligent Design’ needs an Intelligent

Designer”. 2007. Available from http://rightremedy.org/node/183/print. Internet:
Accessed October 12, 2008.

Main Assertion

The main assertion is that public schools are anti-Christ as long as they do not teach

about Christianity or creationism. Johnston states that because public schools teach that

there is no God, all Christians, in turn, must oppose public schools. Johnston also makes

the claim that even if Christians were able to do away with atheism in schools, it would

still be a losing battle for them. Johnston believes that intelligent design is a poor way to

try and keep religion in public schools, and that the argument must be made that religion

41
has everything to do with learning and education as a whole. Because the scientific

method, in Jonston’s eyes, is essentially religious, it cannot be proven by the scientific

method and must not interfere with religious beliefs such as creationism. Johnston

encourages his readers to attempt to prove religious naturalism wrong so that religion can

move back into public schools. The claim is made that intelligent design is a way to hide

religion to work it into the curricula, and is therefore a shameful way of representing the

Christian faith; Johnston claims that by using the power of Jesus, religion can be in public

schools in its proper form, without intelligent design.

Author Analysis

Patrick Johnston is the founder of the Association of Pro-Life Physicians. He works as a

family physician in Ohio with his wife and 6 children. He also founded the Alliance to

Reform Education Funding, which also supports Christian homeschooling, rather than

public schools. While Johnston received a Bachelors of Science in Biology from Florida

State University in 1993, his religious beliefs control the majority of his thoughts and

decisions. Johnston publishes his works though Right Remedy.org, a self-made website

used to promote his beliefs and those of his family. The site also serves as an information

source for those interested in electing Johnston as the state representative of Ohio.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Because Johnston writes his work with religious intent, it can strongly support the beliefs

of those in favor of teaching creationism and other religious topics in schools. However,

because he is against intelligent design, some of his opinions can support the

evolutionist’s side of the argument, but for the wrong reasons. Johnston does not like

intelligent design because he feels that it is “hiding” Christ, while evolutionists feel that

intelligent design is merely another way to introduce religion into the classroom. This

can be seen as both a strength and a weakness for Johnston on this issue. However, he is

so biased on the topic that his document appears to be laced with his own opinions, rather

than facts; a compromise which sacrifices credibility.

42
 Compare and Contrast

Johnston states that all education is in someway religious, and the question that must be

answered is which religion is the right one: a question that seemingly cannot be

answered. The author goes on to say that Christian beliefs “support the presuppositions

of the scientific method.” Johnston [14] essentially makes the claim that for intelligent

design to be integrated into the classroom, it must have more of a religious backbone,

rather than the scientific one it holds now.. This assumption concurs with the statements

of Wilgoren [3], Fulton [6], and Stayer [16] that the ability to teach intelligent design and

creationism has potential in the classroom so long as it is taught alongside evolution and

other scientific data. The National Center for Science Education [18], and Matthews

[15], on the other hand, find that because of its lack of scientific background and

ideologies, creationism and intelligent design should remain outside of the classroom.

Use in Final Essay

This source will be used to represent the beliefs of many conservative Christians against

the teaching of evolution and for the integration of religion in the classroom. By using

Johnston’s beliefs as a source for those who are against intelligent design, valuable points

to the argument can be made.

43
[15] Institutional Source

Matthews, Michael. Answers in Genesis. “Creationism Battle Heats Up In Local

Schools.” Feb. 8, 2002. Available from http://www.answersingenesis.org/
docs2002/0208news.asp. Internet: Accessed Feb. 25, 2008.

Main Assertions

The main assertion is that Ohio has joined the battle between evolution and creationism

because of a lack of creationist beliefs and viewpoints in the school curriculum; it is the

responsibility of Ohio residents to voice their concerns on the issue. After passing a first

draft of a bill changing the Ohio school science curriculum, creationists argued that there

was a substantial amount of evolutionary content without questioning the theory or

making room for other beliefs of life’s origins. Matthews goes on to express that it is in

the hands of all Ohio natives to voice their opinions on the issue and that Christians

around the world must understand the significance of the debate at hand. Matthews

attaches himself to the views of Answers in Genesis, his organization, and believes that

“it would be good if teachers had the legislative freedom and encouragement to present

critiques of evolution and discuss alternatives.” Alongside his own opinions and those of

his organization, Matthews supplies a brief history of the history of this argument and

how it has lead up to the debate’s uprising in Ohio. Because the Ohio Board of

Education failed standards to introduce evolution to its students at all, it was forced to

produce to an alternate curriculum that met these standards; thus turning the state of Ohio

into a battleground for beliefs.

Author Analysis

Michael Matthews earned a bachelors degree in English from Bob Jones University after

attending the University of Chicago for two years; Matthews then went on to receive his

masters in English education at Bob Jones University in 1998. As of July of 2001,

Matthews worked as a writer and editor for the Answers in Genesis group in America.

The majority of Matthews’ articles (which are the majority of those found on the website)

44
are on the ministry that is Answers in Genesis and the creation/ evolution debate raging

in the United States. The Answers in Genesis group is a ministry with the purpose of

defending the Christian religion, which tries to inform its readers and provide them with

ways to defend their faith. Answers in Genesis (or AiG) tries to interpret facts that are

equal for both evolution and creationism by using the Bible. Ken Ham, a minister

originally working in Australia, originally formed AiG in 1979. The group’s self-stated

goal is to “support the church in fulfilling its commission” and strives to deliver the truth

and authority of the Bible and spread the word of the gospel.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Matthews serves as a very reliable source for those who support the creationist belief

system. His background and activity in teaching and informing people about creationism

gives him credibility, and he goes about doing so without attacking those in favor of

evolution. His primary goal is merely to inform his audience and give them an

opportunity to express their beliefs. Because of this, Matthews and his articles can be

seen as trustworthy pieces of information. However, because he is so rooted in

creationist beliefs, he appears unable to understand the argument posed by evolutionists

and scientists. Because of his bias, his credibility is somewhat sacrificed, but his

reliability is not. Matthews writes facts strewn with his own opinions, which may cause

others to believe his information has been falsified.

Compare and Contrast

Matthews cites a report from the 1980s that covered the failures of the public school

system in this article. He also uses efforts by Clinton and Bush to revamp the education

system as background information before talking about the battle in Ohio specifically.

Matthews [15] takes a relatively neutral stance pertaining to the issue at hand, but

because of his affiliation with a pro-creationism group, his bias (although little), leans

toward pro-creationism. Wilgoren [3], Fulton [6], and Stayer [16] all agree with

Matthews, yet they maintain the fact that creationism or intelligent design can be taught
45
legally and respectfully alongside evolutionary theory. However, Johnston [14] and the

National Center for Science Education [18], and –in some ways- Wilgoren [3] side with

the fact that as long as intelligent design or creationism are religiously based, they cannot

be considered a science, therefore keeping them from being taught in typical science

classes; unless, (as stated by Wilgoren [3]) the different viewpoints are taught in a

manner that allows students to decide what they choose to believe in for themselves.

However, because teachers can be biased, this situation can, in a way, be considered

ideal.

Use In Final Essay

This source can be used to display the feelings and thoughts of those who most believe in

creationism, but do not try to rid the world of evolutionary theory. It serves as a source

of information that can be seen as reliable by both sides of the argument, and covers the

situation outside of what it is like in only the classroom. Because of its information, it

serves as a strong source for the creationists and their beliefs about the public school

curriculum and American society as a whole.

46
[16] Institutional Source

Staver, Mathew D. Liberty Counsel. “Legally Teaching Creationism Science In Public

Schools.” 2000. Available from http://www.lc.org/resources/legally_
teaching_creation_science_in_public_schools.html. Internet: Accessed February
24, 2008.

Main Assertions

The main assertion is that teaching creationism in public schools can be done legally, and

that a teacher does not shed his or her rights when they enter the schoolhouse. Staver

asserts that teachers can legally talk about creationism in public schools and gives them

productive, legitimate ways to teach the belief. The basic laws about religion in the First

Amendment are covered and how they apply to teaching creationism; there is not a law

saying that it cannot be taught, therefore making it potentially legal. After summarizing

the primary, relevant points of the First Amendment, Staver goes on to discuss teaching

creationism in context; as long as the topic is relevant, it can be discussed. The assertion

is also made that it is a “great leap of faith to assume that evolution demonstrates how

plants and animals originated.” Staver introduces ideas for teaching creationism in the

classroom by making the notion that it could be open for discussion among the class and

bringing in a guest speaker. Staver then addresses some frequently asked questions about

the teaching creationism or other religious topics in school, such as when it is not ok to

use the word “creationism” and simply strategies to use to introduce the topic in the

classroom.

47
 Author Analysis

Matthew Staver serves as the founder and chairman of the Liberty Counsel, and has

participated in and argued many of the court cases that the Liberty Counsel has seen.

Staver has published eleven books throughout his career pertaining to the religion in

America, and serves as a sort of figurehead for Americans who favor the existence of

religion in public schools. Because of his background, Staver is extremely biased

towards religion in public schools, but does not specifically say that he is against the

teaching of evolution. However, his background does serve as a vital piece of

information that represents the general ideas of those who favor religion in public

schools. The Liberty Counsel is a nonprofit education and policy organization that works

to advance and ensure religious freedom in the United States. The group was founded in

1989, and has since made itself a national organization with offices in Washington DC,

Florida, and many, many others. Since 2004, the organization has won 92% of the cases

it had taken, which has raised from the 86% that it originally won when it was created.

The Counsel has won cases in Alaska defending the church from the American Civil

Liberties Union, New Mexico’s case allowing baptism in prison, and many, many other

specific cases that have arisen throughout the years.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Staver writes the piece in order to provide teachers with a form of free legal consultation

that enables them to discuss religion and creationism in the public classroom. The work

serves as a vital piece of information for teachers of the Christian faith who wish to

maintain their rights in the classroom. By giving this information, Staver represents

those in favor of creationism not only as his career, but also in his writings. His work is a

very supportive set of information that makes a stand for creationist beliefs. However,

because his work is so biased, it can sometimes be considered unreliable. The

48
information Staver provides only works for those in favor of creationism, and not for

evolutionists in any way. There is no balance to the work; it is facts regarding the rights

given to Americans by the constitution with Staver’s own beliefs and thoughts laced

throughout.

Compare and Contrast

Staver [16], agrees with Wilgoren [3], and Fulton [6] in the way that creationism and

intelligent design must be taught alongside evolution, so long as it is done in a legal and

respectful manner. The previously stated authors all concur that students, in the end,

should be able to decide for themselves what form of human creation they believe in,

whether it coincides with their previous religious beliefs or not. Johnston [14] and the

National Center for Science Education [18] make the argument that religiously based

education should not exist in the classroom until it is seen as an actual science.

Use in Final Essay

I plan to use Staver’s work as a representation of how creationists support their argument

that it is their right to teach creationism in public schools. By using the factual

information about constitutional rights Staver provides, a concrete argument for those

who support creationism in public schools can be made.

[17] Institutional Source

Zindler, Frank R. American Atheists. “’Creation Science’ and the Fact of Evolution.”
1987. Available from http://www.atheists.org/evolution/creationscience.html.
Internet: Accessed Nov. 5, 2008.

Main Assertions

The main assertion is that scientific creationism is in no way a scientific ordeal. Because

creationism revolves around the idea of a supernatural creator, and essentially attempts to

defend the book of Genesis of the Bible, it is not, by actual definition, a science. Science,

however, studies only natural forces, and not those that are supernatural. The only reason

49
for creationism’s existence is for religious reasons, rather than scientific. The attempt to

put a scientific value on a religious belief does not transform the belief into an actual

science, but merely disguises the actual intent of the belief: defense of religious ideas.

Zindler makes the claim that creationists generally feel that if they can disprove Darwin’s

findings about evolution, then creationism will stand correct. Zindler denounces this

claim with three primary points; the most important being that it is only presumed that

creationism is true without any supporting evidence. Zindler also discusses the logic of

evolution, in that living things come from other living things and life forms of the past

are different from those that are living today. Because of this logic, it can be realized that

change in life has occurred through time, which is an extended way of portraying the idea

behind evolution. Natural selection is also discussed with scientific evidence that further

supports evolution. Zindler infers that because the earth is not overrun with specific

species of life, there was some way that these organisms were no longer part of the earth.

Author Analysis

Frank Zindler is the head editor of American Atheist Magazine, the director of the

American Atheist Press, and the author of many articles and books about atheism. For

twenty years, Zindler worked as a professor of biology, geology, and psychobiology at

the State University of New York. In 1977, Zindler became a member of American

Atheists. American Atheists is a group of atheistic men and women who’s primary

objective is to educate people about atheist philosophy and inform them of their take on

separation of church and state. The group also hopes to spread the Atheist philosophy

through its readers so that they may be a more prominent group of people in America.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Because the source is published by an atheist group, it poses arguments and statements

that are against creationism and, therefore, pro evolution. Because the article makes

these claims, it does appear to be biased. However, Zindler’s credentials and strong
50
supporting evidence in the document help balance this bias and make it a reliable source

of information. Unfortunately, the document does not specifically address the situation

regarding evolution and creationism being taught in public schools, but it simply focuses

on disproving creationism as science.

Compare and Contrast

Zindler [17] makes the claim that scientific creationism is, in fact, not a science at all.

Because creationism is not supported by any scientific evidence or information, it should

not be a topic in educational science classes. Johnston [14], Antolin [8], and Williams [7]

agree with this statement. However, the 88th Congress [9], Spellings [10], and Anderson

[2] believe that it is acceptable for religion to be in public schools so long as it is

discussed with respect.

Use in Final Essay

This source will be used to support the evolutionist’s belief that creationism is not a

science, and therefore cannot be taught in public school science curricula. The article

will also represent the atheistic philosophy that is a factor in the evolution/ creationism

debate.

51
[18] Institutional Source

National Center for Science Education. “Opposition to Anti-Evolution Bills in Florida.”

March 20, 2008. Available from http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/
2008/FL/527_opposition_to_the_antievolutio_3_20_2008.asp. Internet: Accessed
October 25, 2008.

Main Assertions

The main assertion is that there is an opposition against an anti-evolution bill that was

passed in Florida. After the passing of these bills, there was an astounding uproar from

citizens across the state of Florida. The article moves on to discuss the opinions held by

different newspapers in the state and why intelligent design should not be in the

classroom in the first place; the Supreme Court ruled that intelligent design is a religious

belief because its “theories” rely solely on supernatural forces. The facts of the document

itself serve simply as a summary of the issue in Florida and how people are reacting.

Author Analysis

The national center for Science Education works as a not-for-profit organization meant to

provide students, teachers, and schools with information about evolution. The main

purpose of the organization is to promote and defend evolution theory’s presence in the

public school system without any indication of creationist beliefs in the science curricula.

Primarily, teachers and professors support the organization, but clergy, science

enthusiasts, parents, and everyday Americans provide additional support. The NCSE

defends pro-evolution Americans by providing them with information that not only

supports the theory of evolution, but also disproves the argument made by Christians that

creationism belongs in public schools.

Strengths and Weaknesses

The NCSE portrays what appears to be the most reliable source for the evolutionist
52
argument when addressing public schooling. The coverage and support of the

organization holds credibility that cannot be disproven by bias; the topics covered within

the source are completely factual. The source outlines the uprising of enraged

evolutionists in Florida and what other evolutionists in such a situation can do. Rather

than completely trying to disprove creationists, the NCSE is more interested in fully

proving the validity of evolution and its presence in American schools. Unfortunately,

the document itself does not portray any information other than what its sources have

given it; it is merely a summary of other opinions and efforts, which technically could

have been found in other places. There is a heavy amount of bias in the piece, but it is

not because of the information given in the document, rather the source itself.

Compare and Contrast

The main assertion is that recent legislation in Florida attempting to pass off intelligent

design as scientific information is threatening the future of evolution in the state.

Representatives from the state’s Center for Science and Culture—a pro-creationism

laboratory—are quoted in favor of the Florida legislation. The bills are explained in

detail, and past legislation that relates to this case is also mentioned in the article. While

the NCSE takes the stance that favors the teaching of evolution in public schools, this

article goes further to explain how teaching intelligent design as scientific information

can be harmful to scientific education in the future. In regards to the main point,

Wilgoren [3], Fulton [6], and Johnston [14] concur with the NCSE in that intelligent

design cannot be a part of the curriculum without having an equal balance of science and

religion. Therefore, because intelligent design crosses the proverbial line by being

referred to as a science, it cannot work in public schools. Matthews [15] and Staver [16]

argue that creationism and intelligent design can be taught in public schools as well as

evolution.

Use in Final Essay

This source will be used to demonstrate the initiative by evolutionists, and how they
53
support their argument when faced with creationist arguments in everyday situations.

Using the NCSE’s resources will portray the backbone of the argument being made by

evolutionists.

[19] Expert Interview

Alves, Abel. History Professor. Ball State University. Interview by author. Nov. 13,
2008. Muncie, Ind. Notes. (765) 285-8729.

Main Assertions

The main assertion is that because there is scientific evidence backing evolution, it is a

necessary part of science courses. Because creationism and intelligent design are

religious ideals, their instruction should be left to religion classes. This idea is not left to

evolution or creationism alone; public school science courses should teach scientific

evidence in any case. Unfortunately, there is no scientific evidence to prove

creationism’s scientific worth, specifically in the case of the book of Genesis from the

Bible. There is no conclusive evidence, and there seems to be more of a kind of

neutrality among religious people. The media also appears to add “fuel to the fire” in the

way that it covers the controversy over evolution and creationism; the media does not

portray the gray area that exists between strict evolutionists and austere creationists.
54
Certain Catholics, for instance, are beginning to be more accepting of the evolutionary

idea of creation, but still contain the belief that God was behind it. Alves explains that

another possible reason for people being uncomfortable with the theory of evolution is

that they are not fond of the possibility that people are, indeed, animals and have “animal

bodies”; Alves claims that humans are animalistic in many different ways, and that those

who take the evolutionist point of view are more comfortable with their “animal bodies”

than those who favor creationism. When asked about this situation in the future, Alves

explains that as a historian, it is hard for him to predict what may come in the following

years, but from what he has noticed, the issue will become less and less of a prominent

concern in America.

Author Analysis

Abel Alves is presently the Assistant Chair of the History Department. His area of

expertise is that of a biohistorian; in 1990 he received his doctorate in history at the

University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Alves has studied multiple fields, including

Latin American History, Early Modern European History, and Political Theory, and can

fluently speak Spanish and Portuguese. After receiving his doctorate, Alves became an

Assistant Professor at Ball State University in the fall of 1990. 6 Years later, Alves was

then given the position of Associate Professor at Ball State University. As of 1997,

Alves has been a professor of history, still at Ball State University. “Brutality and

Benevolence: Human Ethology, Culture, and the Birth of Mexico” was Alves’ first book,

published in 1996; Alves has been the author of other books and numerous articles since

1988. As of 2005, Alves had received the Ball State University Lawhead Teaching

Award in General Education, the Office of Multicultural Affairs Hurley Goodall

Distinguished Faculty Award, and had been a finalist in the excellence in teaching award

in 1994, 1995, and 2005. The Ball State University Department of History strives to

prepare students for life as “global citizens”, while equipping them with knowledge about

different cultures, acquiring information, and the skills to communicate their knowledge.

The Department offers many undergraduate programs, including anthropology,

55
philosophy, computer science, criminal justice, sociology, and religious studies. A social

studies teaching major and many graduate programs are offered as well.

Strengths and Weaknesses

The interview with Alves contained an extraordinary amount of vital information while

analyzing the debate among evolution and creationism in public schools. Based on his

own studies, Alves was able to provide different ideas about the issue that are unlike

those found in other sources. His take on evolution and creationism from a historical,

unbiased point presents a different insight on the issue. Because Alves does not associate

himself with any religion, his thoughts are based strictly on science and historical

evidence. Despite the fact that he was raised Roman Catholic, Alves was led away from

those beliefs and thus has seen both sides of the argument. However, because he is a

history professor, Alves’ information may not be as reliable as a professor of biology or

religious studies. Other professors may have a more religious take on the issue with

some knowledge in the area of evolution, or may have more common encounters with

evolution and creationism debates during their instruction.

Compare and Contrast

Alves [19] had decided that because evolution is based on scientific and historical

evidence, it is a necessary part of the science curricula in public schools. Because

creationism and intelligent design are lacking any conclusive evidence or scientific

information, they are religious beliefs and must be limited to religion classes. Williams

[7], Antolin [8], and Zindler [17] agree with Alves. However, the First Amendment

Center [12], Fulton [6], and Anderson [2] agree that religion does have a place in the

public school, and it can be discussed respectfully.

Use in Final Essay

56
This source will be used to present the viewpoint of an educator on the issue and the

reasons behind that viewpoint. After using Alves’ own experiences and knowledge as a

source of information, a conclusion can be made about others who are in favor of

evolution in the classroom without actually being a part of the school system.

[22] DVD

“A War on Science: Intelligent Design in the Classroom.” Producer James van der Pool.
Writer James van der Pool. 2006. DVD. BBS Active, 2006.

Main Assertions

The main assertion is that there is a “war on science” raging on in American classrooms,

and it is being fueled by religious beliefs that, legally, cannot be in the classroom in the

first place. The source interviews many different experts on the issue, including Dr.
57
Stephen Meyer, Prof. Richard Dawkins, Kenneth Miller, and Prof. Philip Johnson, the

creator of scientific creationism, or intelligent design. In 1987, creationism was ruled as

unconstitutional because it violated the separation of church and state. The video covers

the case, as it is today, even after the presence of creationism in public schools has been

ruled illegal. The birth of intelligent design is yet another defense for religious followers

who wish to keep their religion in the classroom by means of intelligent design.

According to rulings, intelligent design is no more scientific than creationism. Professor

Richard Dawkins of the University of Oxford explains that the issue itself wastes time for

scientists who could be progressing their work; the battle between religion and science is

not an issue in any other field of science but biology because it questions religious

beliefs. Dawkins also states that by introducing intelligent design, religious people went

from protecting their religion to promoting it.

Author Analysis

James van der Pool works as a writer for the British Broadcasting Company, or BBC.

BBC is the largest broadcasting company in the world, with the intent of educating

viewers. The BBC strives to be honest and impartial while producing programs. The

executive board of BBC is run by Director-General Mark Thompson, and was created by

a Royal Charter that is funded by the people of the United Kingdom. BBC produces TV,

radio, and online information and news for people across the globe, and broadcasts in

over 32 languages.

Strengths and Weaknesses

The video takes a neutral stance while reporting about the issue regarding evolution and

creationism in public schools, and gives insightful information from American scientists.

The creator of intelligent design, Professor Philip Johnson, is interviewed as well, who is
58
a vital source of information that otherwise may not have been found for use in this

paper. The specific case study of the issue’s presence in the northeast United States

portrays the image of what is actually happening during the argument. Unfortunately, the

video was produced by the British Broadcasting Company, which, despite its presence in

the United States, may not be as informed on the matter as Americans who have actually

encountered the issue in their home state. However, BBC’s neutral, outside stance on the

issue makes the source a reliable one.

Compare and Contrast

BBC [22] makes their video unbiased, but it does take a more scientific approach to the

issue, rather than a religious one. Experts are interviewed on both sides of the argument,

but more scientific information can be found than religious. Because the DVD’s title

refers to a “war on science” rather than a “war on religion”, the information in the video

can be seen as pro-evolution. The interviewees almost unanimously agreed that

intelligent design is in no way scientific and does not belong in the classroom. Detwiler

[26], Alves [19], and Johnston [14] agree with this claim. However, more sources, such

as the US Department of Education [11], the First Amendment center [12], and Fulton

[6], disagree with BBC [22] and claim that intelligent design can be discussed as an

alternative belief of evolution, much like creationism.

Use in Final Essay

The video will be used to represent the general beliefs of scientists while considering

religion in the public school science curricula. The information found in the video will

disprove the scientific validity of intelligent design and pose an argument for those in

favor of evolution.

59
[23] Radio Broadcast

“Ohio Board of Ed Delivers Blow to Intelligent Design Movement.” Greg Allen.

National Public Radio. 2006. Internet: Accessed November 5, 2008.

Main Assertions

The main assertion is that the Ohio Board of Education voted to rid the science standards

of intelligent design and the ability of students to raise questions about how life began.

The original Ohio state science standards allowed students to question evolution and

required teachers to instruct students about how scientists are continuously investigating

evolutionary theory and the thoughts behind it. However, because intelligent design’s

presence in the classroom was ruled as unconstitutional in the federal courts because it

fails to keep a separation of church and state, the Ohio Board of Education was forced to

change its standards. The eleven board members met and voted on the issue, voting 7 to

4 in favor of eliminating the previous standards. Deborah Owers Fink is cited in the

broadcast, as she was one of the four against the eradication of the standards, stating that

it is inappropriate for people to be unable to question evolutionary theory. It is also

stated that the standards are more about academic freedom than intelligent design in the

first place, but it was not enough of an argument to keep the previous standards from

being eliminated.

Author Analysis

Greg Allen works as a Miami correspondent for National Public Radio and reports on

issues primarily taking place in the southeast United States. The majority of Allen’s

stories cover breaking news, arts and human-interest features, economics, and politics.

After graduating from the University of Pennsylvania in 1977, Allen worked at the

campus radio station as a producer and host. In 1992, Allen worked for National Public
60
Radio as an editor for “National Desk”, and continued to work for various positions at

NPR throughout the years. From 1997 to 2000, Allen served as the senior editor of

“Morning Edition.” National Public Radio, or NPR, offers international broadcasts

relating to news, talk, and entertainment, all commercial free. NPR is a not-for-profit

organization that caters to over 25 million American listeners via 860 independently

operated partner radio stations.

A privately supported, not-for-profit membership organization, NPR serves a growing

audience of 26 million Americans each week in partnership with more than 860

independently operated, noncommercial public radio stations.

Strengths and Weaknesses

NPR serves as a valuable source of unbiased, relevant information that is very reliable.

The neutrality in their broadcast portrays a sense of trustworthiness, and the citations and

interviews relay information from both creationists and evolutionists. The significant

strength of the broadcast lies in its content, as it explains the thoughts behind changing

the Ohio state science standards. However, because NPR is such a broad organization,

they may not be as credible on topics like evolutionism and creationism. The

organization covers many topics, every day, so much, in fact, that it leaves on to wonder

if the broadcasts are as in-depth as they can be.

Compare and Contrast

Greg Allen reports from a neutral standpoint, but covers the story from the evolutionist

point of view as he is reporting about the “blow” to intelligent design. The report on the

unconstitutional teaching of intelligent design in place of evolution generally sides with

the likes of van der Pool [22], Glazet [30], and Krauss [25]. However, more and more

people believe that it is acceptable, although unconstitutional, to teach intelligent design

alongside evolutionary theory. Detwiler [26], Diamond [27], and Staver [16] agree with

this statement and support in within their writing.

61
 Use in Final Essay

The radio broadcast will be used to give supporting information for those against

intelligent design’s place in the classroom. The source will also portray a sense of what

states are doing about the issue throughout the United States.

[24] Radio Broadcast

“Intelligent Design in American Classrooms.” Steve Inskeep. National Public Radio.

2005. Internet: Accessed November 5, 2008.

Main Assertions

The main assertion is that multiple states across the United States are going through

multiple revisions and changes in their science curricula, including Kansas, Maryland,

and Alabama. The Kansas school board has encouraged teachers and students to question

and criticize the theory of evolution by discussing other methods of creation in class. The

board also wants teachers to provide information that questions evolution, such as

molecular evidence and gaps in the fossil record. The conservative county of Cecil,

Maryland, nearly passed standards forcing students to read texts that teach alternatives to

evolution and put the theory under question, but decided against it at the last moment.

Other states, however, are very firm with their notions to question evolution, such as

Alabama. Alabama has posted disclaimer stickers in their biology textbooks stating that
62
evolution is, actually, a theory rather than a fact, and that students should keep an open

mind to alternative ways of creation. Inskeep also addresses the fact that school boards

with religious motives will have an impact on the curricula, but when taken to a

courtroom, their motives will be deemed unconstitutional. The argument that rages on

between individual states will eventually be brought to the Supreme Court, where a final

decision will eventually be made.

Author Analysis

Steve Inskeep is the host of National Public Radio’s morning talk show “Morning

Edition”, one of the most popular radio news programs in the United States. Inskeep

began work with NPR in 1996 when he was assigned to the presidential primary in New

Hampshire. Since then, he has covered many political issues, including the war on

Afghanistan and George W. Bush’s campaign in 2000. In 1990, Inskeep graduated from

Morehead State University in Kentucky and currently lives in Washington D.C. National

Public Radio, or NPR, offers international broadcasts relating to news, talk, and

entertainment, all commercial free. NPR is a not-for-profit organization that caters to

over 25 million American listeners via 860 independently operated partner radio stations.

A privately supported, not-for-profit membership organization, NPR serves a growing

audience of 26 million Americans each week in partnership with more than 860

independently operated, noncommercial public radio stations.

Strengths and Weaknesses

The primary strength of the broadcast is the coverage of the case in different states and

what different school boards are doing about it. Inskeep gives a specific, unbiased insight

into what is happening with the controversy surrounding evolution and creationism.

Without taking any type of stance, Inskeep provides a comparison between states and

their school boards. Unfortunately, the topic at hand could be covered in more detail.
63
The broadcast simply touched on the main points without going very deep into the issue.

Regardless, the source serves to provide ample information about the debate between

evolution and creationism.

Compare and Contrast

Inskeep [24] works to provide a neutral account of the debate between evolution and

creationism in the public school system, but does make the statement that many people

are in favor of teachers and students questioning the theory of evolution. Sears [28],

Staver [16], and Matthews [15] are in favor of this stance, and would like to see evolution

questioned if it is going to exist in the classroom. However, many others disagree with

this statement, and feel that because evolutionary theory, is in fact, a theory, it shouldn’t

be under the attack of religion. Zindler [17], Antolin [8], and Williams [7] agree with

this fact, and think that evolution’s place in the classroom should not be questioned.

Use in Final Essay

The broadcast will portray an example of how different states are reacting to the

controversy among evolution, intelligent design, and creationism in public schools.

[25] Radio Broadcast

“In Favor of Barring Intelligent Design from the Classroom.” Lawrence Krauss.
National Public Radio. 2005. Internet: Accessed November 5, 2008.

64
 Main Assertions

The main assertion is that the ruling in Dover, Penn. was the most beneficial outcome for

the argument between evolution and creationism in public schools. Krauss states that

science is based on falsifiable information that is subject to tests to prove the validity;

with creationism and intelligent design, there is no way to test religious beliefs, therefore

having good reason to keep creationism and intelligent design out of the science

curriculum. According to Krauss, “if a significant fraction of the public has doubts about

evolution, we simply have to do a better job of teaching about it.” If people confuse the

two ideas, then they will commit a disservice to both science and theology. In the Dover,

Penn. case, the school board essentially forced teachers to lie to their students about the

nature of science and how scientific theories are carried out. According to Krauss, the

primary function of education isn’t to validate ignorance, but to overpower it.

Author Analysis

Lawrence Krauss is a professor at the School of Earth and Space Exploration. In 1982,

Krauss received his doctorate from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He

currently works at Arizona State University in the physics department. As of 2005,

Krauss had received many awards, including the Gravity Research Foundation First prize

award, the Presidential Investigator Award, the American Institute of Physics Science

Writing Award, and the American Physical Society Joseph P. Burton forum Award.

The Department of Physics at Arizona State University is known for its physics research

of solid-state phenomena and technologically advanced science instruments. The

department’s primary goal is to provide students with high quality research programs and

educational programs.

Strengths and Weaknesses

The claims made by Krauss are biased, but their validity makes him a reliable source for

information about the fact of evolution theory as a science and the faith that is

creationism and intelligent design. There is scientific evidence and reason behind
65
Krauss’ claims; while he shares his own opinions, he addresses them with supporting

information that makes them more than just opinions. Unfortunately, it seems as though

Krauss has not bothered to see both sides of the argument; because of his scientific

background, he seems disinterested in creationist values or beliefs. By paying attention

to these from a creationist standpoint, Krauss would have been able to add even more

strength to his claims. By seeing both sides of the argument, Krauss could have

apparently been even more credible. Regardless, his information supports his opinions,

and his knowledge supports the pro-evolution argument.

Compare and Contrast

Krauss makes the claim that by even making a quarrel over the validity of creationism or

evolution, Americans are doing a disservice to science and theology. There are sources

that agree with this claim from both the creationism side and the evolution side. For

example, Johnston [14], van der Pool [22], and Williams [7] agree with this statement,

although Johnston [14] disagrees with van der Pool [22] and Williams [7] about evolution

as a whole. Furthermore, there are people who disagree with Krauss’ [25] claim and

believe that creationism and evolution could and should be taught side-by-side in public

schools, including the 88th Congress [9], the First Amendment Center [12], and Diamond

[27].

Use in Final Essay

The source will be used to represent the scientific argument and feelings behind the battle

between creationism and evolution in public schools. By giving Krauss’ opinions and

information, a supporting argument can be made for evolutionists against creationism.

66
[26] Book

Detwiler, Fritz. Standing on the Premises of God: The Christian Right’s Fight to
Redefine America’s Public Schools. New York: New York University Press,
1999.

Main Assertions

The main assertion is that the Christian Right is very influential in changing and

criticizing America’s public schools. Because they feel that public schools pay no

attention to their beliefs or morals, they are leading an uprising against the public schools.

However, because teachers and parents don’t quite understand the thought and motives

behind the Christian right, they are inadequately prepared to retort them. Detwiler uses

his book to discuss and explain the motives behind the Christian Right, its history,

leaders, and the way it functions so people wanting to stand against it can hold a strong

argument. Detwiler focuses on the Christian Right as a religiously based social

reformation group, whom he explains are primarily conservative Christians “guided by

certain presuppositions, which center on the nature of reality or truth….” Detwiler also

takes four studies into account while writing, which give an accurate depiction of the

Christian Right at local and state levels. The case studies include the school districts of

Lake County, Fla., Adrian/ Blissfield, Mich., and Vista, Cali. Another study is examined

regarding a ballot initiative in Colorado named Amendment 17. Detwiler ends the book

by stating that when “the mainstream is willing and able to bring forth its considerable

67
resources to the defense of democracy and the public system of American education, the

Christian Right does not prosper.”

Author Analysis

Fritz Detwiler received his doctorate from Pennsylvania State University and currently is

a professor of philosophy and religion at Adrian College, a private liberal arts college in

Michigan. Detwiler specializes in the Christian Right and American religion, as well as

Native American spiritual traditions. Before becoming a professor at Adrian College,

Detwiler served as the President of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters.

In addition to his book “Standing on the Premises of God: The Christian Right’s Fight to

Redefine America’s Public Schools”, Detwiler has also published many papers and

presentations on religious topics. The Adrian College Department of Philosophy and

Religion aims to prepare students with the ability to ask, answer, and understand

questions about the meaning and importance of life. The department requires students to

study the Bible in a historical and literary perspective, and enforces the academic value of

religion and culture, ethics, and church history. Adrian College does, however, have

strong ties to the United Methodist Church, and may prove to hold bias toward religious

issues.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Detwiler provides ample information about the Christian Right and their motives in the

aggression against the public school system. His background in the Christian Right

proves that his information is valid when he is referencing the movement, and his

Methodist religion appears to help him make his assertions. However, his religious

background has a negative impact on his credibility, as he appears biased; regardless,

Detwiler states that he is against the harsh movement of the Christian Right against

public schools. Additionally, the book fails to mention much about the topic of evolution

in public schools. Without making any reference to evolution’s place in science

68
curricula, or even the issue between evolution and creationism, Detwiler’s book seems

less relevant to the topic than other sources. Detwiler does not take any kind of scientific

outlook on the matter, and keeps to his religious background while writing. Regardless,

Detwiler’s approach to the subject about religion in public schools poses a new outlook

into the argument about religious people and their motives.

Compare and Contrast

Detwiler [26] poses the argument that the Christian Right should not have an effect in

public schools because of their religious beliefs. While he does not mention the teaching

of evolution in his book, he does equip those willing to fight the Christian Right with the

information they will need to pose a credible argument. Williams [7], Antolin [8], and

van der Pool [22] essentially agree with Detwiler [26] in that religion should not be so

influential in the proceedings of public schools. However, many believe that religion

does have a place in public schools, so long as it is discussed in a respectable fashion;

among these people are Diamond [27], Sears [28], and Staver [16].

Use in Final Essay

The source will be used to explain the ideas behind the Christian Right’s movement to

keep religion embedded in public schools and what scientists, teachers, and many others

can do to prevent it from happening.

[27] Book

Diamond, Mariam Rosalyn. Encountering Faith in the Classroom: Turning Difficult

Discussions into Constructive Engagement. Sterling, Virginia: Stylish
Publishing, LLC, 2008.

Main Assertions

The main assertion is that valuable conversations about faith can be had in the classroom

when students’ beliefs mix with the content of courses. The book specifically addresses

religion in college and secondary education and how conversations about it can be turned

69
into constructive forms of expression without being reprimanded for expressing their

thoughts in the classroom. Diamond addresses the fact that many college students today

expect their universities to help them search for meaning. According to Diamond’s

information, 80 percent of students have an interest in the spiritual, 76 percent seek out

the meaning of life, and 79 percent believe in God. Because there is such a religious base

in American college students, religious issues should be addressed in a positive,

constructive manner that provides intellectual information to every student. Alongside

observations by Diamond, there is an ample amount of data complied from numerous

surveys across the nation.

Author Analysis

Miriam Diamond is a faculty coordinator for the Society for Values in Higher

Education’s Religion and Public Life Project. Before this position, Diamond served as

the Associate Director for Faculty Programs at Northwestern University’s Searle Center

for Teaching Excellence. Besides “Encountering Faith in the Classroom”, diamond ahs

published works on ethical development, and different approaches to teaching.

The Society for Values in Higher Education works to promote a diversity of perspectives,

the questioning of intellectual perspectives, and to bring people of different backgrounds

together. The mission of the organization is to strengthen diversity and social justice in

higher education. After the organization’s start in 1999, its members have worked to

provide social justice in college campuses across the United States.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Diamond’s book provides a positive outlook on conquering religious topics in higher

education by using them to start constructive discussions that broaden students’ cultural

horizons and induce analytical thinking. The source itself has a supply of data regarding

students and their beliefs, but fails to bring attention to any of the controversy around

evolution and creationism in public schools. The book serves as a guide for teachers who

wish to discuss religion in their classes, but doesn’t address the topic at hand. However,
70
Diamond remains unbiased in the book while still promoting religion’s existence in

public schools. Her information is credible and reliable, without choosing either side of

the argument.

Compare and Contrast

Diamond [27] believes that students can be exposed to the presence of religion in public

schools so long as the religious topics are covered in a respectable, constructive

comportment. Fraser [1], Anderson [2], and Fulton [6] agree with Diamond’s [27]

claims, and think that religion can have a place in public schools alongside other

scientific practices. On the other hand, Williams [7], Zindler [17], and Krauss [25]

believe that there cannot be a coexistence of creationist beliefs and evolution in public

schools, primarily because creationism is not a scientific ordeal, making it inacceptable

for use in the science curricula.

Use in Final Essay

Diamonds insight on how to teach religion in public schools as constructive

conversations will support the idea that religion can exist in public schools, so long as it

is discussed in a neutral manner with students’ and teachers’ benefit in mind.

71
[28] Book

Sears, James T. Curriculum, Religion, and Public Education: Conversations for an

Enlarging Public Square. New York: Teachers College Press, 1998.

Main Assertions

The main assertion is that religion effects public education in multiple ways. Religious

influence has taken a toll on public education by implementing its beliefs into the school

system. The areas affected by religion include textbook selection, character

development, outcome-based education, sexual education, and, most importantly,

evolution and science. Sears discusses the impact of religion and textbooks, why a

common definition of religion helps schools reach justice, sexual behaviors, and the

problem with not letting students question science education. One of the serious

problems with science classes today is that they do not open themselves up for discussion

amongst students and teachers; the theories or ideas presented are typically set in stone.

The argument is made that students don’t get a full scientific understanding only by

learning what theories are about; for a student to fully understand science they need to

learn skills that allow them to defend these theories by knowing what are valid arguments

against the theories.

Author Analysis

James T. Sears is received his doctorate in sociology and education from Indiana

University after earning a masters degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in

political psychology and a bachelors degree in history from Southern Illinois University.

Sears has instructed classes at Indiana University, Penn State University, University of

South Carolina, Trinity University, and Harvard. He currently works as a licensed realtor

in South Carolina. The Teachers College Press claims that its mission is to offer diverse
72
ways of teaching and learning and providing resources for educators, students, and

anyone else involved in the educational process. The TCP publishes books in areas from

toddlers to adult education in topics such as psychology, history, and philosophy by

writers from around the world.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Sears’s claims about how religion has an effect on public education are proven to be

correct by the numerous other sources that speak about this issue. His take on the issue at

hand, however, is a much different approach than others; Sears attempts to point out the

various ways in which religion affects public schools and what can be done about them,

rather than simply targeting the issue in science classes. This is beneficial because it

brings new light to the topic and a different take on the issue at hand. However, it is a

problem that Sears does not discuss the issue about evolution enough; he covers the topic,

but it is merely another chapter in the book about other religion and school quarrels. The

source seems unbiased toward either side of the argument, and therefore has great

credibility.

Compare and Contrast

Sears [28] outlines the primary ways in which religion affects public schools and why

these areas are problems. He appears to support the presence of religion in schools,

mainly because he believes in the academic value of class discussions about different

beliefs. Sears [28] even claims that it is beneficial to have discussions questioning

evolution in science classes, which concurs with the beliefs of Fraser [1], Anderson [2],

and Diamond [27]. Krauss [25], Allen [23], and Johnston [14], however, disagree with

these claims and feel that religion should not be mixed with science, because science is

based on facts and theories while religion is simply subject to individual beliefs.

Use in Final Essay

73
This source will be used to give an example of the ways that religion affects public

schools, why these ways are effective, and what can be done about it. By using this

source, a deeper knowledge of religion’s place in the public schools can be gained.

[29] Institutional Source

Kolbert, Kathryn. Timeline: “How Creationism has Evolved.” 2006. Available from:
http://site.pfaw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues_religious_timeline_creatio
nism. Internet: Accessed October 13, 2008.

Main Assertions

The main assertion is that the creationist movement’s strategies have changed over time

in order to adapt to timely conditions. The creationist movement has had to change

because it has been deemed unconstitutional for creationism to be taught in public

schools, and because Americans have noticed the role that science holds in education. It

is noted that creationists have not changed their opinions, but instead have reworded them

to better suit the world around them; this alone serves as part of the reason why

intelligent design was created in the first place. The history of creationism goes back to

1859, the year that Charles Darwin published the “Origin of Species” and changed how

74
humans thought about their creation. It is established that in 1940, there was a very

miniscule amount of schools teaching evolution because of political attacks from

creationists who took the Bible literally. However, in 1950, Pope Pius XII denounced

Biblical literalism as the only explanation for human origins, which changed how many

Christians felt about evolution’s place in the classroom. The timeline also references the

6-4 decision in Kansas to eliminate evolution from state science standards in 1999, and

the Discovery Institute’s initial attempt to promote intelligent design as a science in 1996.

The timeline concludes in 2006, where the Kansas board of Education voted to keep

evolution as the primary topic when discussing human creation.

Author Analysis

Kathryn Kolbert is the President of People For the American Way and an established

public interest lawyer. Kolbert received degrees from the Temple University School of

Law and Cornell University School of Arts and Sciences, and went on to teach at the

University of Pennsylvania for 25 years. From 1992 to 1997, Kolbert worked as Vice

President of the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy in New York. People For the

American Way works to bring freedom of speech, equality, and other aspects of the

“American way” to every American. The organization hopes to see America as a

“diverse democratic society in which everyone is treated equally under the law, given the

freedom and opportunity to pursue their dreams, and encouraged to participate in our

nation’s civic and political life.”

Strengths and Weaknesses

The primary strength of this source is that it is an in-depth history of creationist ordeals in

the United States and what has been done about the numerous situations throughout the

years. The timeline gives a representation of what different eras have done regarding

creationism in public schools since the beginning of evolutionary theory. Unfortunately,

the document does not give any information about what can be done in the future to make
75
progress on the issue. The fact that the timeline was written without taking any stance on

the issue serves as both a strength and a weakness: because there is no opinion, it is hard

to decide what issues the writer feels are most important. Whether the writer believes

that evolution is a necessity in public schools or religion has a place in science classes, is

unbeknownst to the reader.

Compare and Contrast

Kolbert [29] does not give an opinion in the matter, but because of the organization she

runs, People For the American Way, her timeline can be associated with ideas that are in

support of the coexistence between evolution and creationism in the classroom. The

People For the American Way are generally for religious freedom, much like Diamond

[27], Staver [16], and Matthews [15]. Despite these beliefs, Zindler [17], Alves [19], and

van der Pool [22] think that science classes are strictly meant for science, not religion.

Use in Final Essay

This source will be used to give an extended history on the issue between creationism and

evolution and what has been done in America about it. By showing what has been done

about the issue in the past, a prediction can be made about what may happen in the future.

[30] General Periodical

76
Clemmitt, Marcia. “Intelligent Design: Should Alternatives to Evolution Theory be
Taught?” The CQ Researcher. July 29, 2005. Available from
http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2005072900&t
ype=hitlist&num=0. Internet: Accessed October 12, 2008.

Main Assertions

The main assertion is that if Kansas passes school science standards in favor of intelligent

design, then science will be changed forever. The history of the issue is covered before

2005 and the issue between religion and science in the classroom is covered in great

detail, outlining the major arguing points for each side of the debate. The article supplies

ample graphs and charts portraying the beliefs of Americans and individual states; a

chronology of the issue is given dating back to the 1700s as well. The article serves as an

extended summary of the issue’s prevalence in America and what could happen if

intelligent design is deemed appropriate for instruction in science classes.

Author Analysis

Marcia Clemmitt received a master’s degree from Georgetown University in English,

earned her bachelor’s degree in arts and sciences from St. John’s College in Annapolis,

Md. After receiving her degrees, Clemmitt went on to teach high school math and

physics. She has just joined the staff of the CQ Researcher as a writer. The CQ

Researcher was created in 1923 under the title “Editorial Research Reports” and strives to

produce educated, original articles about current events and other topics in the news.

Each article is based on a single topic and provides an analysis of the issue, chronology,

pros and cons, full-color maps and graphs, and numerous other sections. The CQ

Researcher covers topics ranging anywhere from criminal justice, education, the

economy, and human health.

Strengths and Weaknesses

The strengths of this article lie in its in-depth coverage of the issue from many angles.

By giving a chronological history of the issue, the pros and cons of either side, and what

77
is currently happening with the issue, a very detailed analysis can be made about the issue

in its entirety. The unbiased attitude of the article allows the source to keep its

credibility. The major flaw with the article is that it is somewhat outdated. Because the

article was published prior to the ruling of the case as it stood in Kansas, it does not have

the information that was gained during the case. If the article was published afterward,

the information about the outcome of the case in Kansas could have had an effect on the

outcome of the article.

Compare and Contrast

Clemmitt [30] does not choose a definite side on the argument between creationism and

evolution, but does take into account the severity of the issue. Clemmitt [30] makes the

claim that the issue about creationism, intelligent design, and evolution in the public

school system will have an outstanding effect on the current idea of what religion and

science’s boundaries are in the world. Many agree with this statement, including van der

Pool [22], Allen [23], and Alves [19]. However, many sources do not consider this to be

an issue, and feel that science and religion can coexist in the classroom in the form of

intelligent design; Diamond [27], Sears [28], and Fraser [1] make this assumption

multiple times in their works.

Use in Final Essay

This source will be used to give an extensive analysis on the issue as it affects Americans

everywhere. By using the information provided by this source, an extensive history and

analysis of the issue between religion and science can be made.

78