Teaching Evolution: Do State Science Standards Matter?

Lerner's (2000) much-publicized evaluation of states' standards for teaching evolution and their impact on science teaching produced a variety of responses among educators. Many scientists were encouraged by the fact that 31 states have satisfactory or better standards, whereas other educators were dismayed that 19 states have standards that are less than satisfactory. Indeed, although the average grade for all 50 states was a passable C, more states received failing grades (F and F-) than were rated excellent (see Figure 1). Ten of the states receiving grades of D or worse do not use the word evolution in their educational guidelines, and one (Maine) uses the wordevolution once. 

State standards for teaching evolution are important, for they are presumably the basis for what teachers teach and students learn, and thereby establish the foundation for states' desired educational outcomes. However, a more important factor that influences the quality of evolution education is not discussed in Lerner's report — namely, the evolution-related attitudes and actions of biology teachers. How do states' standards for teaching evolution relate to the acceptance or rejection of evolution by biology teachers? 

Table 1 summarizes how the quality of states' standards for teaching evolution relate to the evolution-related attitudes of biology teachers. In states having low standards for teaching evolution (for example, grades of D, F, or F-, such as in Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio, Georgia, and Kansas), relatively large percentages of biology teachers believe that creationism should be taught in science classes in public schools. In some of these states, significant percentages of biology teachers actually teach creationism in their classes, despite the fact that the US Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v Aguillard established that it is unconstitutional (Moore 2000). The presence of low standards for teaching evolution also correlates with biology teachers' lack of emphasis on evolution (for example, Tennessee and Oklahoma) and anti-science policies such as the presence of anti-evolution disclaimers in biology textbooks (as in Alabama). As Lerner (2000) noted, although low standards for teaching evolution are concentrated in the Bible Belt, they also occur elsewhere (for example, Ohio and Illinois). 

States having satisfactory standards for teaching evolution are not much different. For example, in Louisiana (see Aguillard 1999, Moore 1999c, and references therein) where standards are "satisfactory", over 40% of biology teachers believe that creationism is or may be scientifically valid, and they either do or want to teach creationism in their classes (see Table 1). Nearly another quarter of biology teachers avoid or play down the topic, and many of the state's biology teachers do not recall hearing the word evolution in their college biology courses. Furthermore, the Louisiana Committee for Science Standards treats evolution as it does witchcraft, the occult, and other fringe ideas that are banned from the state's exit exams. 

In Texas, another state having "satisfactory" standards for teaching evolution, evolution receives inadequate coverage in at least half of all biology courses (Shankar 1990; Shankar and Skoog 1993). Thus, the presence of "satisfactory" guidelines for teaching evolution does not mean that large percentages of biology teachers do not endorse (and sometimes teach) creationism in their courses. What about states that have "good" (for example, Minnesota and South Dakota) or "excellent" or "very good" (for example, Indiana and Pennsylvania) standards for teaching evolution? Although these states have the nation's highest standards for teaching evolution, relatively large percentages of their biology teachers believe that creationism should be included in science classes, spend little time teaching evolution, and question the scientific validity of evolution (Weld and McNew 1999; Rutledge and Warden 2000). 

Do Standards Matter?

Although standards for teaching science have been touted as being important for the reform of science education, the studies summarized in Table 1 show that standards often mean little in biology classrooms. Indeed, prior research shows that relatively large percentages of biology teachers throughout the United States continue to endorse creationism, question evolution, and even teach creationism in their courses, regardless of their state's standards for evolution education (see Table 1 and references therein). As Don Aguillard has noted, creationism is alive and well in biology classrooms (Moore 1999c). 

Evolution-related instruction is influenced by educational standards and a variety of other factors such as textbooks, the curriculum, and tests. However, the most important factor in student learning is the teacher. Throughout the United States, many biology teachers avoid (or do a poor job of) teaching evolution, endorse creationism, or, in some cases, teach creationism. One important consequence of such behavior by teachers is that the biology education of "over a quarter — and perhaps as many as half — of the nation's high school students is shaped by creationist influence — in spite of the overwhelming opposition of the nation's scientific, educational, intellectual, and media establishments" (Eve and Harrold 1991). 

The endorsement of creationism by relatively large percentages of biology teachers is not a new phenomenon. For example, more than 60 years ago biologist Oscar Riddle (1941) reported the popularity of creationism among biology teachers and noted that fewer than half of high school biology teachers taught evolution. Almost two decades later Herman Muller (1959) again observed the popularity of creationism among biology teachers and noted that biology teaching was dominated by "antiquated religious traditions". 

When the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) established its "Fund for Freedom in Science Teaching" in the 1970s to combat the anti-science campaigns of creationists, many members of NABT were outraged. According to Nelkin (1982: 158), "letters poured into" NABT's national office decrying "vicious scientific attacks on the creationists" and attempts to "promote atheism and agnosticism in the schools". To accommodate its many creationist members, NABT sponsored a well-attended session about creationism at its annual meeting and published several articles promoting creationism in its journal, The American Biology Teacher (for example, Gish 1970, 1973; Moore 1973; also see Nelkin 1982). Today, many biology teachers continue to proclaim their endorsement of creationism and rejection of evolution (Harp 1999; Scanlon and Uy 1999; Wolfson 1999; Moore 1999a, 2000). 

Standards are not altogether useless in the fight for evolution education. Standards for teaching evolution can provide important support for biology teachers facing protests from creationist students, parents, and administrators who want creationism to be taught (or evolution not to be taught) in biology classes. In addition to state standards, numerous science education organizations (for example, the American Association for the Advancement of Science [1989], the National Association of Biology Teachers [1997], the National Academy of Sciences [1998], the National Research Council [1985], and the National Science Teachers Association [1997]) have issued standards and policy statements urging biology teachers to make evolution a central theme in their classes.

However, states' and science education organizations' standards for teaching evolution have not changed the fact that evolution is often taught poorly — or not at all — in biology classes. As a result, the public (including our former students) overwhelmingly endorses creationism over evolution (for example, Gallup and Newport 1991; Moore 2000; Greenwood and North 1999; Sonderstrom 2000; Finn and Kanstoroom 2000). Throughout the country, large percentages of biology teachers have ignored these standards. If we are to do a better job of teaching evolution — and if our students (future citizens, taxpayers, and political leaders) are going to learn it better — we must do more than establish standards that are ignored.


Affannato FE. A Survey of Biology Teachers' Opinions about the Teaching of Evolutionary Theory and/or the Creation Model in the United States in Public and Private Schools. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Ames (IA): University of Iowa, 1986. 

Aguillard D. Evolution education in Louisiana public schools: A decade following Edwards v Aguillard. The American Biology Teacher 1999; 61 (3): 182–8. 

Aldrich KJ. Teachers' attitudes toward evolution and creationism in Kansas biology classrooms, 1991. Kansas Biology Teacher 1991; 8 (1): 20–1. 

American Association for the Advancement of Science. Project 2061: Science for All Americans. Washington (DC): American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989. 

Buckner EM. Professional and Political Socialization: High School Science Teacher Attitudes on Curriculum Decisions, in the Context of the "Scientific" Creationism Campaign. PhD dissertation, Georgia State University. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 1983. 

Eglin PG. Creationism versus Evolution: A Study of the Opinions of Georgia Science Teachers. PhD dissertation, Georgia State University, 1983. 

Ellis WE. Creationism in Kentucky: The response of high school biology teachers. In RW Hanson, ed. Science and Creation. New York: Macmillan, 1986. p 72–91. 

Eve R, Harrold F. The Creationist Movement in Modern America. Boston: Twayne, 1991. 

Finn CE, Kanstoroom M. Foreword. In: Lerner LS. Good Science, Bad Science: Teaching Evolution in the States. Washington (DC): Thomas B Fordham Foundation, 2000. 

Gallup GH Jr, Newport F. Belief in paranormal phenomena among adult Americans. Skeptical Inquirer 1991; 2: 137–47. 

Gish D. A challenge to neo-Darwinism. The American Biology Teacher 1970; 32: 495–6. 

Gish D. Creation, evolution, and the historical evidence. The American Biology Teacher 1973; 35: 132–40. 

Greenwood MRC, North KK. Science through the looking glass: Winning the battles but losing the war? Science1999; 286: 2071–9. 

Harp L. School guide drops word "evolution." Louisville Courier-Journal 1999 Oct 5; A1, A5. 

Hessler E. Two "e" words: Ecology and evolution. Minnesota Science Teachers Association Newsletter 2000 Winter; 37 (2): 6. 

Lerner LS. Good Science, Bad Science: Teaching Evolution in the States. Washington (DC): The Thomas B Fordham Foundation, 2000. (Also available at .) 

Moore JN. Evolution, creationism, and the scientific method. The American Biology Teacher 1973; 35: 23–6. 

Moore R. Creationism in the United States. VIII. The lingering threat. The American Biology Teacher 1999a; 61: 330–40. 

Moore R. Science at Scopes' school today. Journal of College Science Teaching 1999b; 28: 229–30. 

Moore R. The courage and convictions of Don Aguillard. The American Biology Teacher 1999c; 61 (3): 166–74. 

Moore R. In the Light of Evolution: Science Education on Trial. Reston (VA): National Association of Biology Teachers, 2000. 

Muller HJ. One hundred years without Darwinism are enough. The Humanist 1959; 19: 139. 

National Academy of Sciences. Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science. Washington (DC): National Academy Press, 1998. 

National Association of Biology Teachers. 1997. Position statement on the teaching of evolution. NABT News and Views 1997 Jun: 4–5. 

National Research Council. Mathematics, Science and Technology Education: A Research Agenda. Washington (DC): National Academy Press, 1985. 

National Science Teachers Association. An NSTA position statement on the teaching of evolution. Journal of College Science Teaching 1997; 27 (1): 7–8. 

Nelkin D. The Creation Controversy: Science or Scripture in the Schools? New York: WW Norton, 1982. 

Nickels MK, Drummond BA. Creation/ evolution: Results of a survey conducted at the 1983 ISTA convention.Creation/ Evolution Newsletter 1985; 5 (6): 2–15. 

Petto AJ. Creeping creationism in Pennsylvania's science education standards. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 2000; 20 (4): 13–4.\ 

Riddle O. Preliminary impressions and facts from a questionnaire on secondary school biology. The American Biology Teacher 1941; 3: 151–9. 

Rutledge ML, Mitchell MA. High school biology teachers' knowledge structure, acceptance, and teaching of evolution. The American Biology Teacher, in press. 

Rutledge ML, Warden WA. Evolutionary theory, the nature of science and high school biology teachers: Critical relationships. The American Biology Teacher 2000; 62 (1): 23–31. 

Scanlon L, Uy GL. Private and church schools' approaches vary widely. Louisville Courier-Journal 1999 Jul 4; A10. 

Shankar G. Factors Influencing the Teaching of Evolution and Creationism in Texas Public High School Biology Classes. Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University, 1989. Dissertation Abstracts International 1990; 51 (03): 733A. 

Shankar G, Skoog GD. Emphasis given evolution and creationism by Texas high school biology teachers. Science Education 1993; 77 (2), 221–33. 

Sonderstrom M. Australopithecus or Adam's rib? McGill News 2000; 80 (1): 16–20. 

Tatina R. South Dakota high school biology teachers and the teaching of evolution and creationism. The American Biology Teacher 1989; 51 (5): 275–80. 

Weld J, McNew JC. Attitudes toward evolution. The Science Teacher 1999; 66 (9): 27–31. 

Wolfson, A. "Monkey Trial" town embraces creationism more fervently today. The Louisville Courier-Journal 1999 Oct 4; A1, A6. 

Zimmerman M. The evolution-creation controversy: Opinions of Ohio high school biology teachers. Ohio Journal of Science 1987a; 87: 115–25. 

Zimmerman M. Ohio school boards presidents' views on the evolution-creation controversy. Newsletter of the Ohio Center for Science Education 1987b Oct. 

Zimmerman M. Ohio school boards presidents' views on the evolution-creation controversy. Newsletter of the Ohio Center for Science Education 1988 Jan. 

About the Author(s): 
Randy Moore
Professor of Biology
Editor, The American Biology Teacher
374 Appleby Hall — General College
University of Minnesota
128 Pleasant Street SE
Minneapolis MN 55455-0434

Author(s): Randy Moore Volume: 21 Issue: 1–2 Year: 2001 Date: January–April Page(s): 19–21

Library Resource Type: