“Should public schools teach evolution?”
This was the prompt provided to 51 delegates in a Miss USA 2011 interview. As amusing as it was to watch the beautiful women struggle with the question, their answers indicated more that they were American rather than stereotypical beauty queens.
Most responded to the question with a qualified yes, being sure to flaunt Christian credentials in the process. The smiling faces mustered up the compromising, accommodating answer: “Both sides of
the story” should be offered for students (in reference to Biblical creationism).
The caveat here is the Miss USA pageant is, at some level, a popularity contest, so the crown hopefuls are sure to give the answer they suspect is most wanted by the American public.
As referenced in a 2009 Pew Research Study, 63 percent of Americans believe in the “both-sides-of-the-story” approach. The study goes on to equate evolution with gravity in terms of scientific validity and notes a vast majority of the nation’s scientists agree evolution is a sound theory.
For scientists, as the aforementioned study explains, a theory is “an established explanation for a natural phenomenon… that has repeatedly been tested through observation and experimentation.”
Of course, if certain Americans are insistent upon offering creationism alongside evolution in the classroom, then they must admit they are tyrannical, hypocritical, quixotic, or some combination of the three.
These “accomodationists” assert their faith-based creation narrative is the only one deserving of a place in the classroom while denying other similarly non-scientific ones. But if one creation story is included in the curriculum, then all such narratives should be taught – an impossible task given the hundreds that are available.
Aside from that sticky situation in which creationism supporters and apologists find themselves, there are Constitutional concerns.
The teaching of creationism/intelligent design in a state institution is an assault on the secular law of the land, particularly the First Amendment and what Thomas Jefferson christened a “wall of separation between church and State.” That was an opinion echoed by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
Shockingly, most public school biology teachers across the nation are still hesitant to deny creationism and intelligent design a place in the classroom. A January 2011 Wired Science article reports that 13 percent of high school biology teachers explicitly endorse creationism (or intelligent design, noting it as equally as unscientific), 28 percent base their lesson plans solely on evolution and 60 percent entirely avoid choosing sides.
The article continues by expressing concerns that creationism, even presenting it alongside evolution, undermines scientific literacy and the scientific method.
Although it would be an easy solution, one cannot completely blame the teachers. It’s easy to see their desire to be cautious. They are caught in the middle of a clash where theology, politics, science and popular opinion are involved. Ultimately, we must remind ourselves teachers are not theologians or politicians.
A 2006 National Geographic study notes the issue of evolution is far more politicized in the United States than in any Western European nation or Japan, where teaching evolution is commonplace.
Along these lines, it should not surprise us United States citizens were more likely to reject the theory of evolution than all other 32 nations in the study besides Turkey. In order to fully grasp the lunacy of that statement, replace “evolution” with “gravity” in the previous sentence.
In her 2011 Miss USA evolution interview, Miss California, Alyssa Campanella, said, “Well I was taught evolution in my high school growing up and I do believe in it, and I mean, I’m a huge science geek,” implying a rare unabashed support for teaching evolution in the classroom. Miss California also won the pageant. Perhaps, then, a glimmer of hope is reflected off the beauty queen’s crown.
