mailto: payer@payer.de
Zitierweise / cite as:
Payer, Margarete <1942 - >: Informationsmarktverzerrung durch Fundamentalismus am Beispiel der USA. -- Kapitel 2: Kreationismus und/oder Evolutionstheorie. -- 3. Aus dem Informationsmanagement der Kreationisten. -- Fassung vom 2005-04-08. -- URL: http://www.payer.de/fundamentalismus/fundamentalismus023.htm
Erstmals publiziert: 2005-03-23
Überarbeitungen: 2005-04-08 [Ergänzungen]
Anlass: Lehrveranstaltung an der Hochschule der Medien Stuttgart, Sommersemester 2005
Copyright: Dieser Text steht der Allgemeinheit zur Verfügung. Eine Verwertung in Publikationen, die über übliche Zitate hinausgeht, bedarf der ausdrücklichen Genehmigung des Verfassers.
Diese Inhalt ist unter einer Creative Commons-Lizenz lizenziert.
Dieser Text ist Teil der Abteilung Länder und Kulturen von Tüpfli's Global Village Library
Abb.: Harry Potter? No, he's our latest science teacher / Cartoon by Tony
[Bildquelle:
http://www.red-star-research.org.uk/rpm/religion/reg09.html. -- Zugriff am
2005-04-08]
"Anti-Evolution Political Action 2001, West Virginia, Kanawha County Board of Education
A group of 30 parents signed a complaint presented to the Kanawha County Board of Education that biology textbooks were using "false and fraudulent' information aobut evolution.1999, Kansas Board of Education1974, Texas, State Board of Education
Under continuing complaints from Mel and Norma Gabler, the Texas State Board of Education formally decreed that textbooks should explicitly teach evolution as "a theory" uproven by scientific fact, and that texbooks should not limit what young people might conclude about the meaning of human existence . All BSCS biology texts were rejected under this ruling.1969-70, Texas, State Board of EducationBased upon complaints by Mel and Norma Gabler, the Texas State Board of Education removed two BSCS textbooks which mentioned evolution from its approved list.1969, California, State Board of EducationIn 1970, the board directed that all textbooks must identify evolution as "a theory".
The Science Framework for California Public Schools asserted the equal scientific standing of evolution and "creation theory", mandating that both be taught.1963, California, Superintendent of Public InstructionIn response to the petition of Segraves and Sumrall, ordered that textbooks identify evolution as "a theory" .1963, California, State Board of EducationNell Segraves and Jean Sumrall petitioned the California Board of Education to have a curriculum balanced between evolution and creationism for the purpose of neutrality .1926, Louisiana, Superintendent of EducationThe Louisiana Superintendent of Education ordered the deletion of evolution from textbooks1925-26, Texas, State Textbook Commission The Texas State Textbook Commission directed that all mention of evolution would be deleted from textbooks .1924, North Carolina, State Board of Education 1924, California, State Board of EducationThe North Carolina State Board of Education directed that no textbook giving a statement of human origins other than that of the Bible would be used .
The California State Board of Education issued a directive that teachers should present Darwinism "as a theory only" .
"Anti-Evolution Legislation The USA has had a long and complex history of anti-evolution measures proposed and sometimes passed at the state level. The following list gives information on items in reverse chronological order. The status is given as BILL or LAW and color-coded as either green (for a bill under consideration or a law in force) or red (for a defeated bill or a law which has been vetoed, repealed, or struck down by the courts).
2001, US Senate, SB1, AMENDMENTThis amendment was drafted by Discovery Institute Advisor Phillip E. Johnson for Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. Santorum offered it as an amendment to Senate Bill 1, which is known as the "No Child Left Behind" bill. It was removed from the bill in the conference committee, and thus is not part of the law, but the language was put into the conference report. The important point to remember is that the amendment was specifically considered and rejected.2001, Louisiana, House Bill 1286, BILL 2001, Michigan, House Bill 4382, BILLThis bill directs that the state shall not print or distribute any material containing claims known to be false or fraudulent. It also specifically provides for any citizen to be able to sue the state using the provisions of this bill.
A bill proposed by Rep. Gosselin (House Bill 4382) seeks to amend 1976 PA 451, "The revised school code". The bill directs that all references to "evolution" or "how species change through time" should have additional words added that students should be informed that evolution is an unproven theory and that students should explain the "competing theories" of evolution and "THE THEORY THAT LIFE IS THE RESULT OF THE PURPOSEFUL, INTELLIGENT DESIGN OF A CREATOR."2001, Washington, Senate Bill 6058, BILL
The Washington State Senate considers a bill to require the same "disclaimer" that Alabama required for their textbooks.2001, Georgia, House Bill 391, BILL
This bill directs teachers to distinguish between "philosophical materialism" and "authentic science", and extends to teachers the "right" to present and critique any scientific theory of the origins or life or species. Not expected to be considered in 2001.2001, West Virginia, House Bill 2554, BILLAn "equal-time" style anti-evolution bill.2001, Arkansas, House Bill 2548, BILL
A bill proposed by Rep. Jim Holt of Arkansas would make it illegal for public funds to be used to purchase materials containing known false or fraudulent claims. A list of putative false or fraudulent items was included in the text of the bill. These items were apparently produced by Holt going over the anti-evolutionary literature in a series of short skips and hops. Certain items in the text of the bill were exact quotes of the Jack Chick cartoon tract, "Big Daddy?" Holt enlisted the assistance of Kent Hovind, who testified before the Arkansas State House as an "expert". Holt also claimed to have been influenced by Jonathan Wells' book, "Icons of Evolution".2001, Montana, House Bill 588, BILLHB2548 failed in a House vote on 2001/03/23, with 45 yes votes, 36 no votes, and the rest either absent or not voting. 51 votes were required for passage.
A vote to expunge the earlier failing vote occurred on 2001/04/03. 67 yes votes were needed to expunge the vote; 62 yes votes were cast, 22 no votes, and the remainder were absent or not voting.
It seems likely that Holt will re-introduce HB2548 or similar legislation at his next next opportunity.
House Bill 588 by Rep. Joe Balyeat, R-Bozeman, was presented as an "objectivity in science education" measure, and would have directed the approval of evolution and creationism materials by an appointed six-member committee. Failed in committee, 14-4 vote, 2001/02/20.1981, Louisiana, "Equal-Time" Legislation, LAW1981, Arkansas, Act 590 "Equal-Time" legislation, LAW
Wendell Bird, a graduate of Yale Law School, penned a draft resolution for the Institute for Creation Research. The ICR printed and distributed thousands of copies, with the advice that the resolution was intended to be used at the level of local school boards. Paul Ellwanger modified this draft resolution and distributed it, but with the intent of having it passed as law by states. Although Ellwanger's draft bill was proposed in many states, it only passed in one: Arkansas. There, it followed a path from Ellwanger to a minister, A.A. Blount, to an Arkansas state legisltor, James L. Holsted. Introduced late in the legislative session, Act 590 was quickly moved through the Senate and then the House with little discussion. Act 590 was signed into law by Governor Frank White about a week after its introduction in the Senate .1976, Kentucky, LAWKentucky passed, as a non-controversial law, legislation that allowed teachers to instruct students already believing in biblical creation the tenets of biblical creationism, and allowed such students to earn credit for correctly learning the material .1973, Tennessee, Senate Bill, LAWThis bill mandated both the labelling of evolution as "a theory" and the devotion of equal space in textbooks to "other theories", explicitly citing the Genesis account of creation as one of these. The bill, with a number of amendments, became law without the governor's signature .1928, Arkansas, LAWArkansas voters approved the anti-evolutionary Initiative Act 1 on the November ballot .1926, Mississippi, LAWMississippi was the first state to adopt an anti-evolutionary law following the Scopes Trial .1925, Tennessee, The Butler Act, LAWThis law outlawed the teaching of evolution as the descent of man from lower animals. As the most famous example of early anti-evolution legislation, it also provides us with information about what really bothered the anti-evolutionists: the teaching of the continuity of descent of man from non-human primates. This is the real issue that all later legislation would like to address, but does so only obliquely.1923, Tennessee, BILLSThe Butler Act was the statute under which John T. Scopes of Dayton, Tennessee was charged, leading to the famous Scopes Monkey Trial.
The Butler Act was upheld on the legal issues raised in Scopes' appeal, but the court reversed Scopes' conviction on the technical issue (not raised by the defense) that the fine had been set by the judge and not the jury. The appeals court further requested dismissal of the case by the prosecution, which complied. With no grounds to move the case to a higher court, the Butler Act remained the law of Tennessee until 1968.
Anti-evolutionary bills were introduced in both the house and senate, but neither passed .1923, Florida, LAWAn anti-evolution resolution based upon William Jennings Bryan's views was adopted as law on May 25th, 1923. This marked the second anti-evolution law enacted within the USA .1923, Oklahoma, LAWAn anti-evolution amendment attached to a free textbook bill passed, marking the first enacted anti-evolution legislation in the USA . The free textbook law and its anti-evolutionary sucker were repealed shortly after 1925.1922, Kentucky, BILLAn anti-evolution bill was introduced by Rep. George W. Ellis. Ref:, which notes that 45 more anti-evolution measures were introduced in the next ten years acroos the USA.[Quelle: http://www.antievolution.org/topics/law/. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-08]
Der Stein des Anstosses:
Abb.: Grand Canyon [Bildquelle:
http://www.nps.gov/grca/photos/index.htm. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-08]
Das Buch des Anstosses:
Grand Canyon : a different view / written and compiled by Tom Vail. -- Green Forest, AR : Master Books, c2003. Description: 104 p. : col. ill. ; 21 x 26 cm. -- ISBN: 0890513732
Der Anstoss: Dieses kreationistische Buch wird im staatlichen Buchladen des National Park Service verkauft.
"Grand Canyon: A Different View by author Tom Vail was selected for inclusion at the National Park Service's Grand Canyon bookstore several months ago, and that decision is now coming under fire by groups who do not think that a book about the Canyon from a creation viewpoint has any place among the many others at the bookstore giving their perspectives, theories, and thoughts on the Grand Canyon. The book features essays from over 23 contributors, including 14 scientists with PhDs in their respective fields, as well as contributors with Master’s Degrees, and well-known creationist researchers and theologians. The developing controversy over this book has been added to a list, that includes public display of the cross at the Mojave National Preserve and three Bible verses displayed on small plaques at a few viewing platforms on the Canyon's south rim, which are being used by secular activists to decry any of what they term "faith-based" decisions or displays in the National Parks system.
Evolutionists, Secularists Seek to Silence A Different View
With The Ten Commandments displays under fire nationwide by secular activists and Christ having been all but removed from public celebrations of Christmas, national parks are shaping up to be the next battlefield in the struggle for Christian rights.
Grand Canyon: A Different View by canyon river guide and author Tom Vail has been selected by The National Park Service to be sold in the Park's bookstore at the Canyon, a decision that is coming under fire by not only prominent science groups who actively seek to keep creation information out of schools and textbooks, but also by a private organization entitled Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). This group issued a press release on December 22 with the headline "Christian Fundamentalist Influence on Park Service Decisions 'Faith-Based Parks' Decried" which was picked up on news wires and other media outlets over the holidays.
PEER writes "In a series of recent decisions, the National Park Service has approved the display of religious symbols and Bible verses, as well as the sale of creationist books giving a non-evolutionary explanation for the Grand Canyon and other natural wonders within national parks...." The press release specifically mentions Grand Canyon: A Different View, and features quotes from author Tom Vail and also from Dr. Gary Parker who contributed one of the essays presented in the book. PEER's executive director Jeff Ruch is quoted in the press release, saying "The Park Service leadership now caters exclusively to conservative Christian fundamentalist groups. The Bush Administration appears to be sponsoring a program of Faith-Based Parks."
Secularists are not alone in their unhappiness with the National Park Service regarding Grand Canyon: A Different View. A December 16th letter from the president of The American Geological Institute and six member societies (Paleontological Society, Association of American State Geologists, Geological Society of America, American Geophysical Union, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, & the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology) was sent to the superintendent of The Grand Canyon National Park urging him to remove the book from the bookstore shelves. The letter states "The book, The Grand Canyon: A Different View (compiled by Vail, 2003), makes claims about the age of the rocks and the formation of the canyon that are at odds with the well-documented scientific understanding of Earth history. The book is not about geology, but rather advances a narrow religious view about the Earth." Their letter also warns about "giving the impression that it [the Park Service] approves of the anti-science movement known as young Earth creationism or endorses the advancement of religious tenets as science." The letter closes with the statements "As you know, the Grand Canyon provides a remarkable and unique opportunity to educate the public about Earth science. In fairness to the millions of park visitors, we much clearly distinguish religious tenet from scientific knowledge."
This is an important story for all Christians, and indeed all Americans – in a land where freedom of expression and thought are protected, the ideas presented in this book are worthy of the same freedom to be expressed and presented to the public as any other. Grand Canyon: A Different View is one of many books which seek to explain the origins and processes of the Canyon - but because it is a biblically-based view with a wealth of supporting scientific information, secularists don't feel it should have a voice, and evolutionists want it removed."[Quelle: http://www.newleafpress.net/canyon_contro.htm. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-08]
Abb.: Umschlagtitel
"The Grand Canyon is an awesome display of God's creation. Carved through layers of limestone, sandstone, shale, schist, and granite, this great chasm stretches 277 miles through the Colorado Plateau. It descends over a mile into the earth and extends as much as 18 miles in width. The Canyon holds within its walls mountains that are taller than anything east of the Mississippi River. Grand Canyon National Park encompasses both Marble Canyon and Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon is also a place to find and explore the wonders of His creation. When viewed from a biblical perspective, the Canyon has "God" written all over it, from the splendor and grandeur of the Canyon walls, to the intelligent design of the Creator displayed in the creatures that inhabit this magical place.
Not only is the Canyon a testimony to creation, but it also presents evidence of God's judgment of the world, as told in the book of Genesis. It was a judgment by water of a world broken by the sin of man known as "the Fall." (See the Genesis account of the Days of Creation, the Fall, and the Flood on pages 10-11.) The Canyon gives us a glimpse of the effects of a catastrophic global flood, as well as an appreciation for the scale of the biblical Flood of Noah's day. And yet, at the same time, we see God's handiwork in the beauty and majesty of the earth that we live in today.
Visitors to the Grand Canyon generally find it to be awe inspiring, but at the same time, too overwhelming to be fully understood on its own, for the Canyon can't tell us about itself. As humans, we tend to ask two questions as we view this vast, mysterious hole in the ground: how and why. With the help of some of the top creation scientists and theologians from around the world, we hope to at least scratch the surface of these questions and provide you with some resources to "dig deeper" if you wish.
If we visit the Canyon, or read the prevailing interpretive literature about it, we will find that the views presented are predominantly based on evolutionary theories. For the Canyon, this means that the rock layers were laid down a particle at a time over literally hundreds of millions of years and that the Canyon was later carved slowly by the Colorado River. These theories tend to deny God's involvement and often His very existence.
As you read this book, you will see that we look at the Canyon from a biblical worldview. With that in mind, there is one basic premise, or framework, used as a starting point. That premise is: the Bible, in its original form, is the inerrant Word of God. Therefore, there are three truths that should be clarified. First, in Genesis a "day" is a day, which means a literal 24-hour period of time (technically a "solar day" which is approximately 24 hours). Genesis 1:5 says "... And there was evening and there was morning, one day."Second, there was no death before sin. The first death came as a result of initial sin ..."[Aus dem Vorwort]
"Parks Service Sticks With Biblical Explanation for Grand Canyon / from Robert Longley, Your Guide to U.S. Gov Info / Resources.
Creationist book remains on sale at Canyon's park museumDateline: October 19, 2004
The Bush Administration has decided that it will stand by its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah’s flood rather than by geologic forces, according to internal documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
Despite telling members of Congress and the public that the legality and appropriateness of the National Park Service offering a creationist book for sale at Grand Canyon museums and bookstores was “under review at the national level by several offices,” no such review took place, according to materials obtained by PEER under the Freedom of Information Act. Instead, the real agency position was expressed by NPS spokesperson Elaine Sevy as quoted in the Baptist Press News: "Now that the book has become quite popular, we don’t want to remove it."
In August of 2003, Grand Canyon National Park Superintendent Joe Alston attempted to block the sale of Grand Canyon: A Different View, by Tom Vail, a book explaining how the park’s central feature developed on a biblical rather than an evolutionary time scale.
NPS Headquarters, however, intervened and overruled Alston. To quiet the resulting furor, NPS Chief of Communications David Barna told reporters that there would be a high-level policy review, distributing talking points stating: “We hope to have a final decision in February [2004].” In fact, the promised review never occurred.
- In late February, Barna crafted a draft letter to concerned members of Congress stating: “We hope to have a final decision on the book in March 2004.” That draft was rewritten in June and finally sent out to Congressional representatives with no completion date for the review at all;
- NPS Headquarters did not respond to a January 25th memo from its own top geologists charging that sale of the book violated agency policies and undercut its scientific education programs
- ´The Park Service ignored a letter of protest signed by the presidents of seven scientific societies on December 16, 2003.
“Promoting creationism in our national parks is just as wrong as promoting it in our public schools,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, “If the Bush Administration is using public resources for pandering to Christian fundamentalists, it should at least have the decency to tell the truth about it.”
The creationist book is not the only religious controversy at Grand Canyon National Park. One week prior to the approved sale of Grand Canyon: A Different View, NPS Deputy Director Donald Murphy ordered that bronze plaques bearing Psalm verses be returned and reinstalled at canyon overlooks. Superintendent Alston had removed the bronze plaques on legal advice from Interior Department solicitors. Murphy also wrote a letter of apology to the plaques’ sponsors, the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary. PEER has collected other instances of what it calls the Bush Administration’s “Faith-Based Parks” agenda."
[Source: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility]
[Quelle: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/canyonflood.htm. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-08]
Mel Gabler (1914 - 2004) und Norma Gabler [Webpräsenz: http://www.textbookreviews.org/. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-14] zensieren Schulbücher für Texas. Als Fzundamentalisten ist ihnen die Evolutionstheorie ein Dorn im Auge:
"Censorship of Evolution in Texas / by Steven Schafersman Recent textbook adoptions by the Texas State Textbook Committee continue the state's suppression of the topic of evolution in science textbooks. On September 8, 1982, the Textbook Committee refused to adopt the top-rated world geography textbook, Land and People (Scott, Foresman, and Co.), because it contained the following sentence:
"Biologists believe that human beings, as members of the animal kingdom, have adjusted to their environment through biological adaptation."
The book also contained many passages stating that the earth and its features were millions of years old and that the universe began as stated by the Big Bang theory. These items were heavily criticized by a religious fundamentalist and creationist husband-and-wife team, Mel and Norma Gabler of Longview, Texas, whose sole business is reviewing textbooks. The Gablers are known in education circles throughout the nation as the most effective textbook censors in the country. This couple has been promoting their narrow fundamentalist views for over twenty years by criticizing and influencing the removal of textbooks that contain material opposed to their views. Some of the Gablers' objections to the Scott, Foresman world geography textbook were that
"most people do not consider themselves animals," that "many people, including scientists, do not believe the earth is millions of years old," and that "the text is biased in favor of evolution. By not including other theories, the text implies that evolution is the only credible one. . . . Many people, including scientists, believe that the mammals were created, not `developed.' . . . The text contains evolutionary speculations presented as fact [and] violates [Section] 1.3 of the [Texas Textbook] Proclamation."
During the Textbook Committee's discussion, two members spoke against the book, claiming it overemphasized the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution and violated the proclamation dealing with evolution. Mr. Noon, from Longview, obviously motivated by the criticisms of the Gablers, said that the book was the most "controversial" book on the entire list and that "we will be in trouble all around Texas if we put it on the [adoption] list." Because of the attack by religious fundamentalists, the book failed to be adopted, despite its high quality.
Other world geography textbooks, all adopted, were mostly inferior to the Scott, Foresman book, but they did not make the "mistake" of saying something about evolution and the Big Bang theory.
Michael Hudson, Texas coordinator of People for the American Way, was present at the Textbook Committee meeting and made the following observation:
"It seemed apparent to all in the room--especially the publishers--that the treatment of evolution had condemned an otherwise excellent book to be the sole casualty of the seven books that were bid."
The Texas Textbook Proclamation contains the rules that textbooks must follow if they are to be adopted by the state of Texas. Texas is the second largest purchaser of textbooks in the country. Its centralized book-buying policy controls 8 percent of the total school textbook market in America, and it spends $60 million a year to buy textbooks for Texas's 1,150 school districts. Since only a few titles of each subject are selected at six-year intervals, publishers vie ferociously to get their textbooks on the adoption list, and, since the Texas adoption choices can make or break a publisher, the publishers bend over backwards to comply with the Proclamation. Furthermore, the textbook designed for the lucrative Texas market is used throughout the country, so the enormous economic influence of Texas shapes the contents of America's textbooks. Concerning evolution, the only scientific topic that Texas feels compelled to regulate at present, the Proclamation states the following:
1.3 Textbooks that treat the theory of evolution should identify it as only one of several explanations of the origins of humankind and avoid limiting young people in their search for meanings of their human existence.(1) Textbooks presented for adoption which treat the subject of evolution substantively in explaining the historical origins of humankind shall be edited, if necessary, to clarify that the treatment is theoretical rather than factually verifiable. Furthermore, each textbook must carry a statement on an introductory page that any material on evolution included in the book is clearly presented as theory rather than fact.(2) Textbooks presented for adoption which do not treat evolution substantively as an instructional topic but make reference to evolution, indirectly or by implication, must be modified, if necessary, to ensure that the reference is clearly to a theory and not a verified fact. These books will not need to carry a statement on the introductory page.
(3) The presentation of the theory of evolution should be done in a manner which is not detrimental to other theories of origin.
My discussions with some of the state Board of Education members who were responsible for writing and passing Section 1.3 have convinced me that it was promulgated primarily for religious reasons and is hence a violation of the principle of church-state separation.
For example, former board member Johnnie Marie Grimes believes that evolution is "a powerful force against the spiritual dimension of man" and that, if we teach it as a demonstrated scientific fact, then our public schools will be a "barrier" to the Christian and Jewish religions. Board member William Kemp calls scientists "narrow-minded and bigoted" for preferring to believe in evolution rather than creationism. He made these remarks to me when I suggested that Section 1.3 was a misrepresentation of science. He then told me, "You will only get something worse if you try to change the current regulation." Board chairperson Joe Kelly Butler says that scientific knowledge consists of just the "opinions" of scientists and that such opinions are "irrelevant" to how the state board should treat the topic of evolution. He maintains that the present policy is "about as good as we can do." Butler was not interested in a statement signed by scientists that protested Section 1.3; he said that the "opinion" of scientists would not change his mind. It is possible, however, that a statement signed by the regents of the University of Texas and Rice University against the Proclamation might cause him to alter his view. Presumably, the other board members share these fundamentalist anti-scientific sentiments.
The history of the adoption of Section 1.3 provides the most important evidence for the religious intent behind the Proclamation. Section 1.3 was adopted largely in its present form at the urging of Mel and Norma Gabler. In their letter to the Commissioner of Education, dated August 10, 1973, the Gablers protested the teaching of evolution in the state's schools. They complained that the biology textbooks taught evolution as a fact, not a theory, and omitted any reference to creation. They asserted that:
Textbooks completely censor the fact that there is more scientific evidence against than for evolution. This denies students their academic freedom to learn.... Strictly speaking, evolution is not a science because it cannot be proven--it must be accepted on faith as a philosophy or as a religion.... Textbooks include evolutionary dogma with none of the important evidence for special creation. Why? ... At present all evidence and assumptions are directed toward evolution being the only explanation for life. But the theory of special creation is just as scientific and requires equal treatment.... Either include equal space for scientific evidence for special creation or delete all evolutionary dogma!The Gabler letter ironically justified their demand for equal time by asking for "fairness and objectivity" and for teaching "all the facts" about evolution, including "all the bad" facts. This justification directly conflicts with all the well known Gabler demands to remove the "bad" from textbooks dealing with other topics and present only the viewpoint favorable to the desires of the Gablers. Perhaps the most ironic example of this, in their letter is their analogy of the treatment of evolution and the history of the United States. It states:
We're often told that students must be given the bad about our country, so let's do the same about evolution and discontinue the present double standard. . . . Supposedly, students who reach college without having been told "all the bad" about our country are so disillusioned to find the "truth" that their confidence is shaken. Let's begin telling them "all the bad" about evolution if we want to be fair.
During the August 1982 textbook adoption hearing, the Gablers objected to a Scott, Foresman civics text because it presented the United States "in a bad light, criticizing the American system and slighting American achievement." If the Gablers opinion about fair play and equal time for topics in American history has changed during the past nine years, why hasn't it changed for topics in biology as well?
Also, in their letter, the Gablers say, "Let's practice what had been told us for years: Students have the right to know the truth even if we don't agree with what they are taught." If the Gablers truly believe this, they would have retired from their textbook protesting business in 1973.
The Gablers' letter was convincing enough to the state Board of Education that they adopted on May 11, 1974, what is now Section 1.3 of the Proclamation. Although the Gablers had asked that either equal space for scientific creation be included in textbooks or evolutionary dogma be deleted, the state board found that, because of prior court decisions, they couldn't do this. Therefore, the current wording was chosen by the Priorities Committee to come as close as possible to the demands of the Gablers without violating, in their estimation, case law. The official state Board of Education minutes for May 1974 reported that, because of the changes in the 1974 Textbook Proclamation, Mrs. Mel Gabler "had withdrawn the complaint" and the new policy "was satisfactory to the Gablers." Paragraph (3) of Section 1.3 was added to the Proclamation in 1977 by William Kemp. Why this was thought necessary is not known, but Kemp's well-known anti-evolution prejudices suggest that he thought a further inhibiting factor was necessary to ensure that public school students were protected from the pernicious dogma of evolution.
The impact on textbooks of the Gablers' complaint and the Texas Board of Education's action was dramatic. The post-Sputnik increase in the quality of the biology textbooks was halted and reversed in 1974. Since then, many biology textbooks have been revised to reduce the amount of space devoted to evolution and to present the subject in more tentative terms. Almost all pre-college science textbooks preface any sentence mentioning evolution with the words "scientists believe" (this is the least objectionable way to make a statement theoretical rather than factual). The word evolution is rarely used today; euphemisms are employed, such as adaptation, development, or simply change. The 1977 edition of Otto and Towle's Modern Biology reduced word coverage of evolution by a third over the 1973 edition.
Several texts mention creation, such as textbooks by Smallwood and Green, Houghton Mifflin, Prentice-Hall, and Burgess Publishing Company, without characterizing it as a supernatural explanation that is outside the domain of science. An executive with Doubleday's Laidlaw Brothers asserted, "You're not going to find the word evolution in our new biology textbook. The reason for self-censorship is to avoid the publicity that would be involved in a controversy over a textbook. We'd like to sell thousands of copies." Many editors admit that they try to satisfy both the scientific and creationist camps, a seemingly impossible task. Editors today may rewrite biology and geology textbooks to suppress the evolution content, sometimes over the authors' objections. An example of this is Houghton Mifflin's Investigating the Earth, a team-written textbook sponsored by the American Geological Institute. Some biology textbook writers have received letters from their publishers asking them to leave the topic of evolution out of their books.
All of these science textbooks are being used throughout the country, and all are written to conform to the Texas Textbook Proclamation. Since publishers have written their pre-college science textbooks to comply with the Texas Proclamation, the educational results have been uniformly regrettable. Textbooks include equivocations and misrepresentations about evolution, have reduced coverage of this established theory to a couple of pages or nothing, omit any connection between evolution and other biological phenomena, and even include pro-creationist statements. The result has been that high school graduates have received a censored, second-rate biology education in most schools in the country and will continue to do so until this Proclamation is repealed."
[Quelle: http://texscience.org/files/censorship-texas/. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-14. -- Ursprünglich 1982 erschienen]
Anti-Evolution Court Cases
Where there are laws, there are court cases. Some of these have been notorious, and others more low-profile.
1981, Arkansas, McLean v. ArkansasA test of the "equal-time" legislation passed by the legislature of Arkansas in 1981, this court trial featured a long list of plaintiffs, including ministers, rabbis, bishops, and theologians, who opposed the attempt to have a narrow sectarian anti-evolution account taught as science. A variety of experts testified on the issues, and the "equal-time" legislation was struck down by the trial judge, William R. Overton, in a much-admired decision.1981, California, Segraves v. CaliforniaKelly Segraves challenged the teaching of evolution in schools on the grounds that it infringed upon religious freedom, in that he asserted the teaching of evolution as fact meant that children were told with the authority of the state that their parents' beliefs were wrong. The court ordered that the California State Board of Education must disseminate its 1972 "anti-dogmatism" policy to educators .1977, Indiana, Hendren v. CampbellThe ACLU, on behalf of Jon Hendren, sued the West Clark school board for solely adopting a creationist textbook. The trial court found for the plaintiff, finding the textbook to be sectarian in content and entangling the state with religion .1974-75, Tennessee, Steele v. Tennessee and Daniel v. TennesseeThese two suits separately questioned the constitutionality of the "equal space" anti-evolution statute passed in 1973. A federal court of appeals for the Daniel case ruled the measure unconstitutional on Establishment Clause violations (explicit mention of "Genesis" and prohibition of "satanic" theories in the text). The Tennessee Supreme Court cited the Daniel decision in finding for the plaintiff in Steele .1974, Washington, D.C., Willoughby v. National Science Foundation and Crowley v. Smithsonian InstitutionThese suits challenged the constitutionality of federal support for evolutionry education, in preparing the BSCS textbooks in Willoughby, and in preparing exhibits in Crowley. Both cases were dismissed, and in both cases the US Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal.1970-72, Texas, Wright v. ?The courts in these cases deferred to scientific opinion on the facts. Successful anti-evolutionary challenges would have to dispute the status of evolution and promulgate as scientific their own alternative view .
Referred to by Larson simply as the "Wright case", the mother of Rita Wright brought suit to contest the constitutionality of teaching evolution as a fact without giving time to alternative explanations .1969-70, Mississippi, Smith v. MississippiWright's case was dismissed on procedural grounds. Various appeals affirmed the original decision to dismiss, and the US Supreme Court eventually (1974) refused to hear an appeal of the lower court's ruling.
The Mississippi Supreme Court cited Epperson v. Arkansas as its basis for striking down the Mississippi anti-evolution law .1967-68, Arkansas
The Arkansas Supreme Court overturned the decision in Epperson v. Arkansas, reinstating the Arkansas anti-evolution law as a valid exercise of state power.1967, TennesseeIn 1968, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear Epperson's appeal of the Arkansas Supreme Court ruling. The state's defense was weak, due to a change in Arkansas politics between 1965 and 1968. The US Supreme Court overturned the Arkansas Supreme Court ruling and held the Arkansas anti-evolution law unconstitutional .
A challenge to the 1925 Butler Act was deferred by the trial judge pending relevant legislative action to repeal the act. During this process, a teacher, Gary L. Scott, was fired from his position under the Butler Act, and brought suit. The Senate defeated the repeal measure. Scott's case brought support from the ACLU, the National Science Teachers Association, the NEA, and the AAAS. Scott was reinstated with full back pay, but Scott at this point filed a federal class action lawsuit attacking the Butler Act. The Tennessee Senate re-considered the repeal measure that had earlier been defeated, and this time passed it.1965-66, Arkansas, Epperson v. ArkansasSusan Epperson, a native Arkansan first-year science teacher due to soon leave the state, became the plaintiff in a test case on the constitutionality of the Arkansas anti-evolution law from 1928. The trial judge struck down the law as unconstitutional .1925, Tennessee, The Scopes TrialArguably the most famous court trial concerning anti-evolution, the Scopes Trial has passed into the cultural consciousness as an almost mythic event.[Quelle: http://www.antievolution.org/topics/law/. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-08]
Abb.: The proposition would get a lot of support if the monkeys could vote on it
/ Karikatur von Orr. -- In: Chicago Tribune [Bildquelle:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/sco_phot.htm#Cartoons:.
-- Zugriff am 2005-03-08]
The John Scopes Trial [Quelle:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/monkeytrial/sfeature/sf_music.html.
Sie gelangen beim Klicken zu: |
1922
Abb.: Lage von Tennessee (Quelle: US House of Representatives)January: William Jennings Bryan begins his anti-evolution crusade in Kentucky, speaking out against the Darwinian "law of hate" and calling for a return to the Biblical "law of love." His campaign catches fire in Tennessee.
1925
March 21: Tennessee governor Austin Peay signs into law the Butler bill, outlawing the teaching of "any theory that denies the divine creation of man and teaches instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals."
"PUBLIC ACTS OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE PASSED BY THE SIXTY - FOURTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1925 CHAPTER NO. 27: House Bill No. 185 (By Mr. Butler)
AN ACT prohibiting the teaching of the Evolution Theory in all the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of Tennessee, which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, and to provide penalties for the violations thereof.
Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.
Section 2. Be it further enacted, That any teacher found guilty of the violation of this Act, Shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction, shall be fined not less than One Hundred $ (100.00) Dollars nor more than Five Hundred ($ 500.00) Dollars for each offense.
Section 3. Be it further enacted, That this Act take effect from and after its passage, the public welfare requiring it.
Passed March 13, 1925
W. F. Barry,
Speaker of the House of Representatives
L. D. Hill,
Speaker of the Senate
Approved March 21, 1925.
Austin Peay,
Governor.
May 4: Newspapers throughout Tennessee carry a small notice from the ACLU offering to pay court costs for any Tennessee teacher willing to test the anti-evolution law in the courts.
Abb.: Lage von Daton, Tennessee (©MS Encarta)May 5: At a meeting in Robinson's drugstore in Dayton, Tennessee, science teacher John Scopes agrees to become the ACLU's defendant in a trial testing the Tennessee anti-evolution law.
Abb.: William Jennings Bryan bei einer Anklagerede während des Prozesses [Bildquelle. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/sco_phot.htm. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-08]May 13: Though he hasn't practiced law for 30 years, William Jennings Bryan agrees to represent the World's Christian Fundamentals Organization as special prosecutor at the Scopes trial.
Abb.: John Scopes [Bildquelle: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/evolution.htm. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-08]May 25: In Dayton, a grand jury indicts John Scopes for violating the Butler Law.
July 10: Case Number 5232, the State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes, comes before Judge John T. Raulston. Prosecution and defense teams choose members of the jury.
July 13: Clarence Darrow delivers an impassioned speech against "religious bigotry and hate." He hopes to convince Judge Raulston to declare the Butler Law unconstitutional.
July 15: Judge Raulston upholds the Butler Law and the trial continues. Witnesses for the prosecution and defense testify. Darrow and the defense team bring prominent scientists to Dayton to testify for evolution.July 17: Judge Raulston reads his decision forbidding the defense team's scientific experts to testify before the jury. Darrow objects strenuously. Believing the trial is over, many reporters leave town.
July 20: Because of the heat and the crowd, Judge Raulston re-convenes court outside, under the trees. The defense calls Bryan to the stand as an expert on the Bible. Darrow's relentless interrogation of the elderly Bryan becomes the most famous event of the trial.
July 21: After nine minutes of deliberation, the jury returns a verdict of guilty. The judge imposes a fine of $100 on the defendant and John Scopes speaks for the first time, vowing to "to oppose this law in any way [he] can."
July 26: Five days after the trial ends, Bryan dies in his sleep in Dayton. Many blame his death on the stress of Darrow's interrogation, but he had been ill with diabetes for some time.
July 31: In a pouring rain, William Jennings Bryan is buried in Arlington National Cemetery just across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C.
1927
January 15: Darrow and the ACLU challenge the Butler Law before the Tennessee Supreme Court. The court overturns John Scopes' conviction on a technicality -- because the judge, not the jury, set the fine. But it allows the anti-evolution law to remain on the books.
1930
September: A college named for William Jennings Bryan opens in Dayton in the old high school where John Scopes taught. Bryan College would grow into a liberal arts Christian college spread out over 100 acres in the hills above Dayton.
1938
March 13: Clarence Darrow dies at the age of 81. At his request, friends scatter his ashes over a bridge in Chicago's Jackson Park.
1955
Inherit the Wind opens on Broadway. Written by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee, the play uses the Scopes trial to symbolize the intolerance of McCarthyism, and the Communist witch hunts of the 1950s.
1960
July 21: Dayton celebrates the 35th anniversary of the Scopes trial with parades and photo opportunities. John Scopes returns to the scene of his "crime." The movie version of Inherit the Wind premieres at a local drive-in.
1967
May 16: Tennessee overturns the Butler law. A newspaper editorial says, "Tennessee will be saved the ordeal of another trial in which a proud state is required to make a monkey of itself in a court of law."
1968
October 18: In Epperson v. Arkansas, the U.S. Supreme Court overturns an Arkansas ban on the teaching of evolution, making all anti-evolution laws unconstitutional.
1987
June 19: In Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court declares unconstitutional Louisiana's "Creationism Act" demanding equal time for creationism whenever evolution is taught.
1996
September: The Book of Legal Lists calls the Scopes trial one of the top ten greatest trials of all time.
1999
August 12: The Kansas Board of Education votes to omit any mention of macro-evolution from its state science standards. The board later votes to rescind the decision.
[Quelle: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/monkeytrial/timeline/index.html. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-08]
"The Scopes Trial of 1925 pitted William Jennings Bryan against Clarence Darrow and teacher John T. Scopes in an American court case that tested a law passed on March 13, 1925, forbidding the teaching of evolution in Tennessee public schools. It has often been called the "Scopes Monkey Trial". The Butler Act
At issue was the Butler Act, which had been passed a few months earlier by the Tennessee State legislature. The Butler Act provided:
- "That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals."[1] (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/tennstat.htm)
By the terms of the statute, therefore, it was not illegal to teach that apes descended from protozoa, or to teach the mechanisms of variation and natural selection. It was only illegal to teach that man had descended from a lower order of animal.
The legislative rationale for the Butler Act was multifaceted, as, at the time, evolution was a new and very controversial idea. At that time, the theory of evolution was strongly linked with atheism, and ultimately codified as a doctrine in the new "religion" of humanism in the Humanist Manifesto[2] (http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html). Second, it called for a radically different understanding of human identity, as it asserted that men were descended from apes, an idea which was highly offensive to many. Finally, it was strongly linked with eugenics, or the policy of exterminating or sterilizing those considered "genetically inferior." All of these ideas which conflicted with the Christian idea that all people were created in the image of God, and which were vehemently fought by many Christians.
William Jennings Bryan was highly influential in raising public and legislative support for the Butler Act, and he articulated many of above concerns in his published work, In His Image, in which he argued that evolution was both irrational and immoral.[3] (http://www.scopestrial.org/inhisimage.htm)
In large part as result of these concerns and the speeches of Bryan within Tennessee advocating the law, the legislature of Tennessee determined that it was inappropriate to have such an idea taught as fact in public schools, and enacted the Butler Act.
Testing the Butler ActThe American Civil Liberties Union had offered to defend anyone accused of teaching evolution in defiance of the law. The leaders of Dayton, Tennessee, then a town of 1,800, thought that the controversy of such a trial would put Dayton on the map. They asked a 24-year-old science teacher and athletic coach named John T. Scopes, who agreed.
The textbookThe text used by Scopes, Hunter's Civic Biology, was primarily a biology textbook. However, it also reflected some of the concerns that drove the Tennessee legislature to enact the law. In support of white supremacy and a policy of eugenics against the genetically inferior, it noted:
- “Although anatomically there is a greater difference between the lowest type of monkey and the highest type of ape than there is between the highest type of ape and the lowest savage, yet there is an immense mental gap between monkey and man … . At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the others in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.” (pp. 195–196)[4] (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/hunt195.htm)
- “… if such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways of preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe and are now meeting with success in this country.” (pp. 263–265).
Scopes used the textbook, and was charged with violating the Butler Act.
The trialThe original prosecutors were Scope's friends, Herbert and Sue Hicks.
Hoping to attract major Press coverage, George Rappalyea, one of the people who convinced Scopes to go to trial, naively wrote to the British novelist H. G. Wells asking him to join the defense team. Wells replied that he had no legal training in Britain, let alone in America, and declined the offer. However, John Neal, a law school dean from Knoxville, volunteered. William Jennings Bryan, a fundamentalist preacher and three-time presidential candidate for the United States Democratic Party, offered to join the prosecution team. In response, Clarence Darrow, a staunch agnostic, volunteered his services to the defense. After much toing and froing, the defense team consisted of Darrow, Arthur Garfield Hays and Dudley Field Malone. The prosecution team was rounded out by A. T. Stewart, Ben B. McKenzie, and William Jennings Bryan, Jr. The trial was covered by journalists from around the world, including H. L. Mencken for The Baltimore Sun, which was also paying part of the defense's expenses. It was the first US trial to broadcast on national radio.
The defense strategy was to have the charges thrown out on the grounds that there was actually no conflict between evolutionist ideas and the account in the Bible, though by the time it went to appeal, the defense was claiming that the case was invalid because the law was essentially designed to benefit a particular religious group, which would be unconstitutional. They brought in eight "experts" on evolution, who did not testify in person but were allowed to submit evidence in the form of affidavits. Much, if not all, of this so-called "evidence" would be regarded as very quaint indeed, not to say highly inaccurate, by today's standards.
To support his contention that evolution was morally pernicious, Bryan cited the famous Leopold-Loeb trial involving Darrow the year before the Scopes Trial. Darrow had saved two rich sadistic young murderers from the death sentence, and Bryan cited Darrow's own words:
The cross-examination of Bryan
- this terrible crime was inherent in his organism, and it came from some ancestor … Is any blame attached because somebody took Nietsche’s [evolutionary] philosophy seriously and fashioned his life upon it? … it is hardly fair to hang a 19–year–old boy for the philosophy that was taught him at the university.
On the seventh day of the trial, Clarence Darrow took the unorthodox step of calling William Jennings Bryan, counsel for the prosecution, to the stand for cross-examination, in an effort to demonstrate that belief in the history and miracles of the Bible was unreasonable. Bryan accepted, on the understanding that Darrow would in turn submit to cross-examination by Bryan. He questioned the story of Jonah, the account of the Earth standing still, and the Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar. Bryan responded by steadfastly adhering to belief in the reported miracles, but asserted that he did not know how Earth was, as the Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar was only a calculation of men. When asked to explain the use of the word "Day" in the first chapter, he said:
- "I have not attempted to explain it. If you will take the second chapter--let me have the book. (Examining Bible.) The fourth verse of the second chapter says: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth, when they were created in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens," the word "day" there in the very next chapter is used to describe a period. I do not see that there is any necessity for construing the words, "the evening and the morning," as meaning necessarily a twenty-four-hour day, "in the day when the Lord made the heaven and the earth."
The questioning continued into whether Eve was actually created from Adam's rib, where Cain got his wife, and how many people lived in Ancient Egypt. The contest was very heated. Darrow making remarks such as:
- "You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does believe in your fool religion,"
Bryan made remarks such as:
- "The reason I am answering is not for the benefit of the superior court. It is to keep these gentlemen from saying I was afraid to meet them and let them question me, and I want the Christian world to know that any atheist, agnostic, unbeliever, can question me anytime as to my belief in God, and I will answer him."
Immediately after questioning Bryan, Darrow suddenly asked the judge to instruct the jury to find his client guilty and closed the case for the defense. Thus he denied Bryan the chance to cross-examine him in return. Scopes never testified, as there was never a legal issue as to whether he had taught evolution. (There seems to have been some question about whether he really did ever teach evolution, but the point was not contested at trial.) The law itself was on trial.
After eight days of trial, during which Darrow was charged with contempt but later apologized, Scopes was found guilty on July 21 and ordered to pay a $100 fine. Bryan offered to pay it.
Appeal to Supreme Court of TennesseeScopes appealed, challenging the conviction on several grounds.
First, Scopes argued that the statute was overly vague because it prohibited the teaching of "evolution," a very broad term. The Court rejected that argument, holding:
- "Evolution, like prohibition, is a broad term. In recent bickering, however, evolution has been understood to mean the theory which holds that man has developed from some pre-existing lower type. This is the popular significance of evolution, just as the popular significance of prohibition is prohibition of the traffic in intoxicating liquors. It was in that sense that evolution was used in this act. It is in this sense that the word will be used in this opinion, unless the context otherwise indicates. It is only to the theory of the evolution of man from a lower type that the act before us was intended to apply, and much of the discussion we have heard is beside this case."
Second, Scopes argued that the statute violated his the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as it prohibited him from teaching evolution. The court rejected this argument, holding that the state was permitted to regulate his speech as an employee of the state:
- "He was an employee of the state of Tennessee or of a municipal agency of the state. He was under contract with the state to work in an institution of the state. He had no right or privilege to serve the state except upon such terms as the state prescribed. His liberty, his privilege, his immunity to teach and proclaim the theory of evolution, elsewhere than in the service of the state, was in no wise touched by this law."
Third, Scopes argued that the statute violated the Tennessee constitutional clause providing: "It shall be the duty of the General Assembly in all future periods of this government, to cherish literature and science." The argument was that the theory of the descent of man from a lower order of animals was now established by the preponderance of scientific thought that the prohibition of the teaching of such theory is a violation of the legislative duty to cherish science.
The court rejected this argument, holding that the determination of what laws cherished science was an issue for the legislature, not the judiciary:
- "The courts cannot sit in judgment on such acts of the Legislature or its agents and determine whether or not the omission or addition of a particular course of study tends "to cherish science."
Fourth, Scopes argued that the statute violated the Establishment Clause, unconstitutionally establishing a state religion.
The Court rejected this argument, holding that the Establishment Clause was designed to prevent the establishment of a state religion as had been the experience in Britain and Scotland at the writing of the constitution, and held:
- "We are not able to see how the prohibition of teaching the theory that man has descended from a lower order of animals gives preference to any religious establishment or mode of worship. So far as we know, there is no religious establishment or organized body that has in its creed or confession of faith any article denying or affirming such a theory. So far as we know, the denial or affirmation of such a theory does not enter into any recognized mode of worship. Since this cause has been pending in this court, we have been favored, in addition to briefs of counsel and various amici curiae, with a multitude of resolutions, addresses, and communications from scientific bodies, religious factions, and individuals giving us the benefit of their views upon the theory of evolution. Examination of these contributions indicates that Protestants, Catholics, and Jews are divided among themselves in their beliefs, and that there is no unanimity among the members of any religious establishment as to this subject. Belief or unbelief in the theory of evolution is no more a characteristic of any religious establishment or mode of worship than is belief or unbelief in the wisdom of the prohibition laws. It would appear that members of the same churches quite generally disagree as to these things."
Further, the Court held that while the statute forbade the teaching of evolution, it did not require the teaching of any other doctrine, so that it did not benefit any doctrine over the others.
Nevertheless, having found the statute to be constitutional, the Court set aside the conviction on appeal due to a technical issue: the jury should have decided the fine, not the judge, as Tennessee judges cannot set fines above $50. The prosecution did not seek a retrial.
Not until 1968 did the US Supreme Court rule in Epperson vs. Arkansas that such bans contravene the Establishment Clause because their primary purpose is religious.
Publicity and dramaPublicity
H. L. Mencken's trial reports were heavily slanted against the prosecution. He mocked the town's inhabitants as "yokels" and "morons". He called Bryan a "buffoon" and his speeches "theologic bilge". In contrast, he called the defense "eloquent" and "magnificent". Some evolutionists have claimed that Mencken's trial reports turned public opinion against creationism, though few people seem to have actually noticed this at the time.
The trial also brought publicity to the town of Dayton, Tennessee, leading some to speculate that it was a publicity stunt. From The Salem Republican, June 11, 1925:
Inherit the Wind
- "The whole matter has assumed the portion of Dayton and her merchants endeavoring to secure a large amount of notoriety and publicity with an open question as whether Scopes is a party to the plot or not."
Main article: Inherit the Wind
Abb.: Kassettentitel der DVD
{Wenn Sie HIER klicken, können Sie diese DVD bei amazon.de bestellen}The stage play Inherit the Wind (1955) by Lawrence and Lee, later adapted into a film in 1960 by Stanley Kramer, was (very loosely) based on this trial. It was not intended to depict the trial accurately, but rather to decry the excesses of the Joseph McCarthy era in 1950s politics. It starred Spencer Tracy as Henry Drummond/Darrow, Fredric March as Matthew Harrison Brady/Bryan and Gene Kelly as Mencken. In 1988, a rewrite of the Kramer movie shown on NBC starred Jason Robards as Drummond and Kirk Douglas as Brady.
There were many serious deviations in the movie to rule it out as serious history. Whereas Brady was portrayed as refusing to read Darwin, Bryan was very familiar with it. It has Bryan claiming that sexual intercourse was original sin, nothing was said about sex in the trial. While ItW had Brady betraying Cates' girlfriend, the local preacher's daughter, the real Scopes didn't have a girlfriend at all. Brady protested that the fine was too lenient, Bryan offered to pay the fine."
[Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_Trial. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-08]
"Epperson v. Arkansas No. 7 Argued: October 16, 1968 --- Decided: November 12, 1968
Abb.: Susan Epperson, the Arkansas teacher who successfully challenged her state's anti-evolution law in the 1968 Supreme Court case, Epperson v Arkansas [Bildquelle: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/evolution.htm. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-08]Appellant Epperson, an Arkansas public school teacher, brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the constitutionality of Arkansas' "anti-evolution" statute. That statute makes it unlawful for a teacher in any state supported school or university to teach or to use a textbook that teaches "that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals." The State Chancery Court held the statute an abridgment of free speech violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The State Supreme Court, expressing no opinion as to whether the statute prohibits "explanation" of the theory or only teaching that the theory is true, reversed the Chancery Court. In a two-sentence opinion, it sustained the statute as within the State's power to specify the public school curriculum.
Held: The statute violates the Fourteenth Amendment1, which embraces the First Amendment's prohibition of state laws respecting an establishment of religion. Pp. 102-109.
(a) The Court does not decide whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague, since, whether it is construed to prohibit explaining the Darwinian theory or teaching that it is true, the law conflicts with the Establishment Clause. Pp. 102-103.
(b) The sole reason for the Arkansas law is that a particular religious group considers the evolution theory to conflict with the account of the origin of man set forth in the Book of Genesis. Pp. 103, 107-109.
(c) The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion. Pp. 103-107.
(d) A State's right to prescribe the public school curriculum does not include the right to prohibit teaching a scientific theory or doctrine for reasons that run counter to the principles of the First Amendment. P. 107.
(e) The Arkansas law is not a manifestation of religious neutrality. P. 109.
242 Ark. 922, 416 S.W.2d 322, reversed. [p98]
1 Fourteenth Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
"CREATIONISM IN 2001 A State-by-State Report This past summer marked the 75th Anniversary of the infamous Scopes "Monkey Trial" in Dayton, Tennessee, where biology teacher John Scopes was convicted for teaching evolution in a public high school in 1925. Today, the debate over teaching evolution in the public school science classroom still rages. Religious Right activists continue to push creationist agendas in many communities around the country, and with some success. This report documents recent creationist activity in 28 states in every region of the country except New England. It offers vivid proof that the longstanding battle to make science teaching conform to religious beliefs has followed us into the new century.
Over the past year or so, the media has focused its spotlight on the Kansas Board of Education's decision in August 1999 to remove evolution, as well as the Big Bang theory and any mention of cumulative changes in the Earth or the age of the Earth, from the state science standards. One of the school board members, Steve Abrams, had worked closely with Tom Willis, a "young earth" creationist who is president of the Creation Science Association of Mid-America, to draft the revised standards that were accepted by the Board in a 6-4 vote. The outcome of the vote ignited outrage from educators, scientists, students and parents within the community and around the country.
This past summer, the efforts of a coalition of scientists and pro-evolutionists, including People for the American Way, contributed to a resounding defeat of four of the ten school board members whose seats were up for re-election. In early August 2000, Kansans voted in the Republican primary to oust three out of the four school board members who voted for the revised standards last year. This outcome guaranteed that evolution would again return to the Kansas state science standards. Indeed, in February 2001, after the departure of the majority of the anti-evolution members, the Kansas State Board of Education voted 7-3 to approve new science standards that include both micro-and macro-evolution, as well as the Big Bang theory. The Pratt County School Board in Kansas, which had rewritten its science standards in November 2000 with the help of individuals who support the creationist theory of intelligent design, will now have to reverse itself to align its standards with the state board's new revisions.
Frustrated by court rulings that hampered their efforts over the past several years, creationists such as those in Kansas have been seeking election or appointment to local school boards and textbook committees in the hopes of gaining control at the local level.Kansas was not an anomaly. The state board of education's August 1999 vote encouraged creationist efforts in other state legislatures and school boards. Two months after the Kansas vote, both Kentucky and Illinois removed the word "evolution" from their state's science standards and replaced it with "change over time." February and March of this year saw the introduction of anti-evolution bills in the Michigan and Arkansas state legislatures, and Pennsylvania is considering revisions to its state science standards that would include requirements that students be familiar with arguments against evolution. See below for further details.
This past month saw the introduction of anti-evolution bills in the Michigan and Arkansas state legislatures...
Creationists also continue to work at the national level. In May 2000, fellows from the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture held a briefing on "intelligent design" theory on Capitol Hill. Rep. Mark Souder, one of the program's sponsors, discussed the briefing and made the following remarks in the Congressional Record:
Intelligent design theory is upheld by the same kind of data and analysis as any other theory to determine whether an event is caused by natural or intelligent causes . . . . Today, qualified scientists are reaching the conclusion that design theory makes better sense of the data.
Rep. Souder thanked Phillip Johnson, one of the leading advocates for "intelligent design" theory, for drafting his response. Even President George W. Bush weighed in on the controversy during the campaign, indicating that he believes both evolution and creationism ought to be taught in the public school science classroom.
Last fall, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation presented "Good Science, Bad Science: Teaching Evolution in the States," a state-by-state survey of science standards. The report concluded that more than a third of all states do not do even a satisfactory job of requiring students to understand the fundamentals of evolution.In addition to examining science standards in several states, this report presents an overview of creationists' activities over the past two years in school boards, legislatures, and libraries in 28 states around the country.
Overview of Creationists' Recent Activities
Alabama
For the past several years, the state has required that all public school biology textbooks include a disclaimer stating that "evolution is a controversial theory." In addition, the Board of Education's current state science standards, last updated in July 1999, mandate that explanations of the origin of life "shall be treated as theory and not as fact." Orange County Register, January 13, 1999. See also Alabama State Department of Education web page, http://www.alsde.edu, for current state science standards.
Recently, a committee of the Alabama Board of Education drafted new state science standards, entitled "Course of Study: Science" (COSS). The proposed standards employ the euphemism "change over time" in some places, rather than "evolution." In addition, the standards require students to "analyze different theories of evolution," which could open the door to permitting instruction about different brands of creationism. The Board of Education is expected to adopt the final version of COSS early this year. See National Center for Science Education's Home Page, http://ncseweb.org to view an unofficial copy of the proposed standards.
Alaska
A member of the State Board of Education & Early Development reported at the December 1999 meeting that a resolution was introduced at the Alaska Association of Student Government meeting in October 1999, asking that biology classes cover Christian theories of life. The resolution did not pass. Minutes from Alaska State Board of Education & Early Development Meeting, December 9, 1999.
Arizona
In January 2000, the state House Committee on Federal Mandates and States' Rights voted 4-2 in favor of a bill that would have required schools that teach students about evolution to also present the "scientific" evidence that does not support that theory. The bill (HB 2585), which was sponsored by Rep. Karen Johnson (R-Mesa), died before a floor vote. Arizona Daily Star, January 28, 2000; Arizona Republic, February 17, 2000.
The current state science standards, which were amended in August 1998, require a student to be able to distinguish between evidence supporting the theory of evolution and evidence that does not support the theory. Arizona Science Standard 2: History and Nature of Science.Arkansas
In March 2001, the state House Committee on State Agencies and Government Affairs approved a bill (HB 2548) that would require classroom instructors in state agencies, museums, zoos, public schools, and any political subdivisions of the state to instruct that evolution and related scientific concepts are "theories" rather than fact. During the committee hearings, Rep. Denny Altes responded to opponents by asking, "If we teach kids they were descended from monkeys, don't you think they'll act like monkeys?" The action came 20 years after the same state legislature passed a similar bill that was later struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. The bill failed to pass the House in a full vote. Chicago Tribune, March 22, 2001.
California
According to the Ventura County Superintendant, Chuck Weis, at least one member of the county school board is interested in discussing the possibility of teaching creationism in the county's public schools. Los Angeles Times, July 3, 2000.
Colorado
In 1999, the Directors of Liberty Common School, a charter school, adopted a policy that topics such as evolution or the origin of life "extend beyond the scope of science" and thus would not be taught at the school. Parents complained to the Board of Education of the Poudre County School District, which oversees the charter school. On October 23, the board declared that the school had breached its contractual agreement to teach the Core Knowledge curriculum and ordered the school to lift its ban on teaching evolution. An administrative law judge will now decide whether the school district can force the charter school to include evolution in its science curriculum. Associated Press Newswires, August 28, 2000; Denver Post, October 24, 1999; Denver Rocky Mountain News, October 27, 1999.
The seven-member State Board of Education has drafted standards that do not require evolution to be covered on state science tests. The current Model Content Standards for Science states that they do not define any "student expectations related to the origin of life." See also Colorado Model Content Standards for Science, Colorado Department of Education web page, http://www.cde.state.co.us/download/pdf/science.pdf
The Chairman of the State Board of Education, Clair Orr, has reportedly revealed that he believes in divine creation. Because he believes that neither evolution nor creation theory can be proven, he argues that the two should be treated equally in the science classroom. Denver Rocky Mountain News, July 7, 2000.Florida
In the election last fall, three candidates for the Palm Beach County School Board and four candidates for the Martin County School Board stated that they favor the teaching of creationism along with evolution in the public schools. Two of those candidates won the election. Palm Beach Post, November 8, 2000; Palm Beach Post, September 3, 2000.
Georgia
In February 2001, a bill (HB 391) introduced in the state legislature would give public school science teachers the option to present and critique evolutionary theory about the origins of life. See Georgia State Legislature's Web Page, http://www.ganet.org/services/newleg/legsearch.cgi?year=2001&bill=HB391&hi ghli ght=evolution.
Idaho
In October 1999, the state Board of Education considered, but voted 7-1 against, a proposal that would have added a requirement that students be able to "list two strengths and two weaknesses of the Theory of Evolution." The Spokesman Review, January 27, 2000.
Illinois
In October 1999, the Chicago Tribune revealed that in July 1997, the state Board of Education had removed the term "evolution" from the teaching guidelines and state science standards and replaced it with the phrase "change over time." The action was influenced by a conservative Christian group affiliated with James Dobson's Focus on the Family. Chicago Tribune, October 24, 1999.
Indiana
In January 2000, Rep. Gary Cook (D-Plymouth) and Rep. Dennis Kruse (R-Auburn) co-authored and introduced a bill in the state legislature that would have permitted the governing body of a school corporation to require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science. Rep. Cook told students at Plymouth High School: "We felt that if evolution is taught in the schools, the students should be given a choice of learning about creation, too." The bill was not given a hearing in the House Education Committee. South Bend Tribune, January 30, 2000.
Kentucky
In September 1999, more than a dozen members of the Big Bone Baptist Church passed out approximately 475 anti-evolution books to students as they left Ryle High School in Union, Kentucky. The books, entitled Refuting Evolution, were published and donated by Answers in Genesis (AIG), the evangelical creationist organization known best for building a creation museum. AIG also passed out the books to students at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. AIG proudly asserts that some of the Kansas school board members read the book before their infamous vote in August 1999; Cincinnati Enquirer, September 11, 1999.
In October 1999, the state education department deleted the word "evolution" from the state science standards and replaced it with "change over time." Washington Times, October 7, 1999; Louisville Courier-Journal, October 5, 1999.
In January 2000, a bill (HB 299) was introduced in the state legislature that would have created a new law defining an evolution theory that may be taught in public schools, as well as defining an evolution theory that shall not be included in the school curricula. The bill died in the House Education Committee.
Louisiana
The Supreme Court of the United States refused to review a case from the Fifth Circuit, striking down the Tangipahoa Parish school board's decision to require that the teaching of evolution must be accompanied by a disclaimer mentioning "the biblical version of creation" and other teachings on life's origins. Associated Press, June 19, 2000; New York Times, June 25, 2000.
The current state science standards require that students explore "experimental evidence that supports the theory of the origin of life."
Maryland
Two candidates, Deran S. Eaton and Edward Pinchback Holland, III, who were running in the Charles County school board elections in the fall of 2000, favored teaching creationism as well as evolution in the public schools. Both candidates stated that they would like to see schools incorporate more religion into the curriculum. Eaton is vice chairman of Concerned Families of Maryland Coalition, a right-wing organization calling for smaller federal government involvement in education and the return of moral value instruction to public schools. Although not a member of the organization, Holland's positions on education are in line with CFMC. Neither candidate won the election. The Washington Post, February 27, 2000; The Washington Post, March 5, 2000.
Michigan
In February 2001, a bill (HB 4382) was introduced in the state legislature that would require that creationism be taught in middle and high schools. Specifically, the bill requires that state science standards be revised such that evolution must be referred to as "an unproven theory" and that students must be required to explain competing theories, such as "that life is the result of the purposeful, intelligent design of a creator." The bill was referred to the Education Committee. See Detroit News, March 19, 2001.
In Wyoming, MI, the ACLU has brought suit against the Vanguard Charter Academy, a charter school, on behalf of parents who complained that some teachers were presenting creation science in the classroom and that there had been other church-state violations. The charter school is managed by National Heritage Academies, which operates 27 charter schools in all. If true, the school's teaching practices are in contravention of Michigan's science curriculum framework, which include instruction on evolution. The lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge in September 2000 and the ACLU is considering an appeal. Associated Press, September 27, 2000.
In the 1998-99 school year, a local pastor asked the Melvindale-Northern Allen Park school board in Wayne County to add creationism to the curriculum. As an alternative, the board purchased 19 creationist books for the school libraries rather than choosing to change the teaching practices. Detroit Free Press, October 23, 1999.Minnesota
A local resident asked the Rosemont-Eagan-Apple Valley school for permission to donate a pair of books that challenge evolution and present intelligent design theory. The donation of the books in question, Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial and Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box, was denied by a vote of 6-1. Salon.com, December 13, 2000.
In 1999, Rodney LeVake, a public school teacher, sued Minnesota Independent School District 656 over his right to teach creationism in his biology class. LeVake had been removed from his position as a biology teacher in 1998. LeVake alleges that he was fired because the school believed that his religious views on Christianity conflicted with his ability to effectively teach evolution. The American Center for Law and Justice, founded by Pat Robertson, is representing him. The case was dismissed in June 2000 after the court found that LeVake neglected his teaching responsibilities by rushing through the curriculum on evolution. LeVake has since filed an appeal. Associated Press, reprinted in Minneapolis Star-Tribune, June 24, 2000; Minneapolis Star-Tribune, August 14, 2000.
Mississippi
The state's current curriculum framework for science does not include any reference to evolution, natural selection, or even "change over time" in its Biology I or II standards.
Nebraska
In October 1999, the State Board of Education voted 5-3 against a proposal from one board member to direct Department of Education staff to write a policy on teaching a variety of origin theories in science classrooms. In June 1999, the board had voted on science standards that left out any instruction on creationism. The October vote came on the heels of a decision by the State Department of Education to modify the state science standards such that evolution would be taught as a theory, rather than as fact. Omaha World-Herald, October 22, 2000; Lincoln Independent, October 10, 1999.
New Mexico
On January 31, 2000, a bill (SJM47) introduced in the state legislature would have required the state board of education "to allow the use of materials in the classroom for the study of creation theory." The bill passed the Senate's Education Committee, but no further action was taken.
In October 1999, the State Board of Education voted 13-1 to restore the teaching of evolution to the statewide science curriculum. In 1996, the board, led by ardent creationists, had voted to remove evolution from the science curriculum. The following year the state legislature attempted to respond to that action by introducing a bill that would have required that evolution be included in the curriculum. Although the bill passed the state Senate, it failed in committee in the House. The Skeptical Inquirer, January 1, 2000.
New York
Early in 2000, the sponsor of a charter school scheduled to open this past fall in Rochester, NY, announced that the school would teach creationism as an alternative to the theory of evolution. The school's sponsor, John R. Walker, is an assistant professor of business at Roberts Wesleyan, a Christian college there, and a pastor of the Faith Christian Center Church. Walker defended the action by explaining that, in his view, it is necessary to present creationism as an alternative to evolution because the theory of evolution is unproven. The school, Rochester Leadership Academy, is one of 27 operated by National Heritage Academies of Grand Rapids, Michigan. See earlier discussion regarding teaching of creationism at Vanguard Academy, also operated by NHA, in Michigan. Senior Vice President Mark DeHaan acknowledges that the company did not mention creationism in the curriculum it presented to New York regulators, but stated that he thought it was "inappropriate to teach evolution as 'This is reality.' We have to teach evolution as a theory, and . . . there are other theories out there." The school did not receive charter status. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 3, 2000.
Ohio
In March 2000, the State Board of Education considered but rejected a proposed amendment to the state science competencies that would have required the teaching of both intelligent design and evolution. Columbus Dispatch, March 10, 2000.
In May 2000, a bill (HB 679) was introduced in the state legislature that would have required that scientific evidence both supportive and not supportive of the evolution theory be included in public schools. The bill was assigned to the Education Committee and no further action was taken.Oklahoma
In November 1999, the State Textbook Committee voted to require publishers to affix a disclaimer to any science book that discusses the theory of evolution. Specifically, the disclaimer states that evolution is a "controversial theory." At least one publishing company refused to comply with the requirement. In February 2000, Attorney General Drew Edmundson issued an opinion that the State Textbook Committee had no authority to require that biology textbooks carry the disclaimer. Associated Press, February 2, 2000; Tulsa World, November 23, 1999; Washington Times, November 11, 1999.
Following on the heels of the Textbook Committee's actions, on April 5, 2000, the state House unanimously approved an amendment to a Senate bill (SB 1139) that would require all state-approved science textbooks to acknowledge "that human life was created by one God of the Universe." The House also approved legislation that would permit the State Textbook Committee to insert a one-page disclaimer to this effect. The legislation was laid over until the next session and no further action has been taken. In response, the University of Oklahoma Faculty Senate immediately released a public statement declaring its opposition to the proposed legislation. University of Oklahoma's Oklahoma Daily, April 13, 2000; Oklahoma Capital Bureau, April 6, 2000.
Oregon
In March 2000, administrators at Central Oregon Community College investigated complaints about biology instructor Kevin P. Haley, including allegations that he allowed his religious beliefs to influence his teaching, such that he taught creationism whenever the theory of evolution was discussed. Administrators have recommended against renewal of his contract. Mr. Haley admitted to being a creationist, but denied the allegations. Chronicle of Higher Education, April 14, 2000.
Pennsylvania
This past fall, the Pennsylvania Department of Education issued a revised draft of Proposed Academic Standards for Science and Technology. The proposed standards include requirements that students analyze studies that support or do not support the theory of evolution. When the Department considered an earlier version of the standards that did not ask students to consider alternative theories to evolution, the Pittsburgh-based Creation Science Fellowship objected. The chairman of the organization, Andrew Wert, said he believes that evolution "is not a scientific theory." Patriot-News Harrisburg, February 18, 2001;
A Pennridge High School senior, Joe Baker, recently received permission to host a debate between a creationist and an evolutionist. Prior to receiving this permission, Baker had been asked by school officials to stop distributing a book by Kent Hovind, a Florida Young Earth creationist, entitled Are You Being Brainwashed? Propaganda in Science Textbooks. The debate comes on the heels of Baker's proposal to the curriculum committee to include in science classes. Allentown Morning Call, November 8, 2000.
South Carolina
In October 2000, the Aiken County Review Board considered a proposal by a parent that would have allowed its schools to teach both evolution and creationism. In January 2001, the board voted 9-0 not to make creationism a part of the school district's curriculum. The parent, Glenn Wilson, has stated that he would not let the decision go unchallenged and if his appeal of the board's decision is denied, he has suggested that he will go to court. Augusta Chronicle, January 23, 2001; Associated Press, October 18, 2000.
Tennessee
A member of the Memphis School Board finally decided to drop his efforts to remove evolution, Darwinism, and the Big Bang Theory from public school science classrooms. The district has agreed to notify clergy when its teachers plan to address evolution so that clergy will have the opportunity to then talk about creationism. Another board member admits that evolution has always been taught as a "theory" rather than as fact. Associated Press, November 27, 2000.
Washington
Roger DeHart, a high school biology teacher at Burlington-Edison High School, has been involved in a continuing battle over teaching creationism in his public school classroom. With the school board's acquiescence, he planned to continue trying to challenge evolution when the four classes he teaches reached that unit at the end of the 1999-2000 school year. Although school officials have watered down his presentation, they have permitted him to continue to teach a portion of Of Pandas and People, the intelligent design textbook. The book is sold by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, a Dallas group that focuses on Christian-based areas of academic concern. ABA Journal, November 1999 at 50-55.
Harold Hochstatter, a Republican state senator, was a candidate this past fall for governor of Washington state. In addition to opposing abortion, gay rights, and gun control, he is an ardent creationist. In the past, he has introduced legislation that would have required a warning label on science textbooks, stating that evolution is only a theory. Hochstatter did not win the election. The Seattle Times, August 23, 2000.
West Virginia
A parent in Kanahwa County has filed a complaint with the school district over science textbooks that include references to evolution. The parent argues that the books violate a state law requiring that textbooks contain accurate information because they present evolution as fact, rather than as theory. See Education Week, November 29, 2000.
In May 2000, the Thomas More Center for Law and Justice, a Michigan-based conservative group, offered Kanawha County School Board members a deal: the Center would provide free legal services if the board voted to purchase an anti-evolution textbook for school teachers. Rob Muise, a lawyer for the organization, said, "We'll be your shield against such [legal] attacks." The school board declined. Charleston Gazette, May 19, 2000.
While a committee of the board had earlier recommended purchasing the book Of Pandas and People, they rescinded their support after the Charleston Gazette reported that several national science teacher groups opposed the book. The textbook committee includes several creationists. The school board later refused to use taxpayer money to buy copies of the textbook, but one of the board members said that she would donate copies of the book to the school libraries and the Thomas More Center offered to buy copies for the libraries as well. Charleston Gazette, June 16, 2000; Charleston Gazette, March 16, 2000, Charleston Gazette, May 19, 2000; Charleston Gazette-Mail, January 26, 2000.
In December 1999, school board members rejected a resolution that would have supported teachers who criticize Darwin's theory of evolution in the classroom. Karl Priest, a member of the textbook committee and a math teacher at Andrew Jackson Middle School, who is also a member of the Kanawha Creation Science Group, wore a gorilla mask at the board meeting to mock board members during the vote. Charleston Gazette-Mail, January 26, 2000.
[Quelle: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/creationismreport.pdf. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-08]
Zu Kapitel 3.: Sexuelle Aufklärung und AIDS
