Analysis Of Teaching Controversy By Mark Mccaffrey

The two-hour special documentary, Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, features the Kitzmiller v. Dover School District case in 2004. It captures the turmoil that tore apart the community of Dover, Pennsylvania in one of the latest battles over teaching evolution in public schools. Some members of the community believed that not only Darwinism, but also a so called theory, Intelligent Design, should be taught in their public high school. It was a battle between the two theories. It forced neighbor against neighbor and friend against friend. The community itself was broken half and half on the controversial issue.

Teaching of evolution has several issues. One of the main issue is that it is unfair to some students with a

Through the 1920s, conflicts regarding the teachings of religious values versus Evolution, along with the increasing fight for women’s independence, caused a great deal of tension within America. Prior to the ‘20s schools taught the Bible and Christianity’s principles were stressed. It was in 1925 when Clarence Darrow defended John Scopes, a biology teacher, who was put on trial in the court for teaching the theory of Evolution (Doc C). This document illustrates the dialogue of

The following cases are utilized: Pickering v. Board of Education, Mt. Healthy City School District v. Doyle, Connick v. Myers, Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeir, and Garcetti v. Ceballos. The case, Pickering v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court acknowledged teachers have the right to voice personal views as they relate to issues of public concern (Cambron-McCabe, McCathy & Eckes, 2014). More specifically, “The Pickering case is one of the most influential court cases concerned with the balancing of teacher’s First Amendment right to freedom of expression against the state’s interest in promoting efficient schools” (DeMitchell & DeMitchell, 1990, p 385). If a teachers voices personal views that are damaging to coworkers, school procedures, ones’ occupational performance, and does not directly relate to public concerns there will be grounds for disciplinary actions (Cambron-McCabe, McCathy & Eckes, 2014). This constitutional rights stands both inside and outside of the classroom, as educators can utilize various methods of communication, such as social media, written artifacts, visual relics, and expressive language. In the case, Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier, a teacher’s personal opinion can be expressed within the contours of a classroom when applicable to pedagogical reasons. More specifically, “Reasoning that the teachers was speaking for the school, the court concluded that teachers are not entitled to express views in the classroom that are counter to the adopted curriculum” (Cambron-McCabe, McCathy & Eckes, 2014, p. 242). If the topic discussed within the classroom is controversial in nature it must be censored, thus deeming appropriate to a youthful audience. In conclusion, it is imperative for educators to ‘think before they speak,’ as their actions can have detrimental impacts on key stakeholders as well as their

In the “Monkey Trial” William Jennings Bryan spoke as the leader of the Christian fundamentalist, what him and his followers wanted to do was for the people and court to find out how unfair it was for something that they perceived as “materialistic and anti-religious be taught in the very same classrooms from which all religious instruction had been banned” (Thomas, 2009 p. 25). This situation created a lot of debates among the people. Many things changed in the American public schools that arise because of the evolution theory and religion.

Facts: The parties in this case are the appellant, Susan Epperson an Arkansas public high school teacher, and the State of Arkansas. Ms. Epperson brought legal action against the State of Arkansas in order to challenge the Constitutional legitimacy of the State’s “Anti-evolution” law. The “Anti-evolution” law made it illegal for any teacher in a state supported school to teach evolution or to use a book, which included the theory. Ms. Epperson believed the State’s prohibition of teaching evolution violated her Constitutional rights and thus initiated legal action in the courts.

Can you imagine not learning how to multiply or divide or anything else that you find necessary to help you succeed in school? Then maybe you can visualize living in the state of Tennessee, where public schools could not teach Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. It all started when the teachers Butler Act was passed, it banned the teaching of the Evolution. Most people were indignant because of how the law favored those who acclaimed the bible. The conviction of John Scopes in the Scopes Trial was caused by political factors like the laws passed and the trial itself, the geographic factors such as the location also known as the Bible Belt and lastly the primary factor is social factors, such as religious beliefs.

Starting with the Scopes Trial, many more cases have occurred concerning the teaching of evolution. “By 1928 every southern state except Virginia had debated or was considering legislation banning the teaching of evolution in the

“In 1925, Tennessee outlawed teaching the theory of human evolution in public schools.” This ban of evolution was taken to court and was named the Scopes Monkey Trial, since the Tennessee teacher John Scopes was the defendant in the case. However, as Ronald Numbers states in his book, Galileo Goes to Jail: and other myths about science and religion, this was a response “to the invitation of the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposed the statute on free-speech grounds, [so] town leaders in Dayton, Tennessee, decided to test the new statute in court by arranging a friendly indictment of a local science teacher named John Scopes.” In this trial many celebrities in politics and law presided over this trial, in the end it was more of a publicity stunt than anything else. Yet for many years, this trial was believed to be entirely about how the very Christian based community of Tennessee didn’t agree with the teachings of evolution. This event was misconstrued so much that it was even printed in school books that give examples of Sciences fight against the tyranny of Christianity. Newspapers printed headlines about this trial for years to come and it lead the public to believe that this was not just about publicity but about the actual fight of science vs

The Scopes trial, writes Edward Larson, to most Americans embodies “the timeless debate over science and religion.” (265) Written by historians, judges, and playwrights, the history of the Scopes trial has caused Americans to perceive “the relationship between science and religion in . . . simple terms: either Darwin or the Bible was true.” (265) The road to the trial began when Tennessee passed the Butler Act in 1925 banning the teaching of evolution in secondary schools. It was only a matter of time before a young biology teacher, John T. Scopes, prompted by the ACLU tested the law. Spectators and newspapermen came from allover to witness

With advancements in intellect and social boundaries changing, political inconsistencies swept the nation creating widespread conflict concerning specific beliefs based in religion. The most exemplary and remembered scenario in which politics and religious beliefs wove together was a court case regarding the teaching of evolution as opposed to creation. Because religion, specifically Christianity, remained the prominent faith in America, the teaching of evolution became shocking and simply disgraceful. This court case, the Scopes trial, displays an instance in which the debate of legality in teaching evolution in a public school turned into an attack on a man’s faith as Clarence Darrow pestered W.J. Bryan about his religious beliefs and practices.

Creating debates in the classroom incorporates critical thinking skills by providing opportunities to orally speak and verbalize one’s thoughts and opinions. According to Scott (2008), using debates as a learning tool, increases critical thinking skills as it requires students to research their information, draft their argument, gather and analyze information, and justify their answer as they present their side of the argument (Scott, 2008). It also allows students to evaluate information they receive that might be of a different perspective than their own and come to their own conclusions. For example, students can read an article about a current event and vote on which side they believe in and then create an argument, reasoning, and conclusion around their

Despite great efforts to convince the opposing side, a battle still brews amongst creationists and evolutionists over the beginning of life and the universe, but neither opinions’ palpability can be firmly upheld through scientific manners. Since science can only prove hypotheses that are testable and based on current observations, neither creation nor evolutionary concepts can be proven with irrefutable evidence. However, regardless of the inability to prove either concept, most public school systems promote evolution as a scientific fact. Many students who lack firm beliefs about the origin of life believe what they are taught without giving any personal thought to the matter. Instead of robotically absorbing biased information,

Teaching Creationism or Intelligent Design to our youth can be done in a way that is neither opinion based nor completely fact based, but may hold some risk of personal interpretation. The first thing needed to be considered is how can children of the middle school age range grasp such a deep subject and have the capacity to reach their own conclusion. Information found regarding the development of children in this developmental range was found in the book titled "Characteristics of Middle Grade Students,” Caught in the Middle by the Sacramento Department of Education. It was found that students of this age hold a variety of learning attributes that support the belief that children can handle both sides of this controversial issue. Some

Public schools are a place to learn proven facts and some very well—known and accepted theories. These schools have been led this way for a long time and show no signs of changing. Many states around the country have rejected the teaching of creationism in public schools, since the subject is so controversial among teachers and parents. In Ohio, a bill to develop new science content standards was not successfully passed. Many creationists were upset when they discovered that the first drafts of the standards were filled with evolutionary content, without any allowance for alternative explanations of life’s origins. In the uproar, the state board held a special meeting to investigate the process that the writing team and advisory committee used to draft the science standards (Matthews, Answering Genesis). This is why learning the facts about evolution should be taught at school. By doing this, there would be much less confrontation between teachers, students, and parents. If one has the desire to learn about creationism or any other beliefs of how the world came to be, one should learn it at a place outside of school, such as church or at home.