Search

Although John Scopes and his famous “Monkey Trial” strongly influenced the ongoing evolution-creationism controversy, relatively little is known about Scopes’s post-trial life. Moreover, many questions about his trial remain unanswered (e.g., did he actually teach evolution in Dayton?). This paper answers these questions with new information from a previously ignored source – his family and friends.

Just before his death in 1970, John Scopes claimed that his famous trial “had no other effect upon my family” than his sister Lela losing her teaching job in Paducah, Kentucky. He was wrong. My interviews with John Scopes's family members and descendants – most of whom have never talked about their famous relative until now – reveal that the legacy of the Scopes Trial continues.

Many biology teachers visit Dayton, Tennessee, to experience “ground zero” of the evolution–creationism controversy. This article provides concise descriptions, addresses, and GPS coordinates for the trial-related sites in and around Dayton.

The alleged “man tracks” beside dinosaur tracks near Glen Rose, Texas, are among the most enduring pieces of evidence used by young-Earth creationists to reject evolution. Despite the tracks’ fame, their most persistent advocate – that is, Carl Baugh of the Creation Evidence Museum – has published neither (1) peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals about the tracks nor (2) clear, convincing, unenhanced photographs of unaltered tracks taken during an excavation. I participated in an excavation sponsored by Baugh’s Creation Evidence Museum that uncovered three “man tracks” that Baugh and his assistants verified as being made by humans. These “tracks” are presented here and are among the first clear, unenhanced photographs of freshly uncovered “man tracks” taken during a Baugh-led excavation. They look no different than any of the countless other scuffs, cracks, and erosion marks in the area.

Students regard evolutionary theory differently than science in general. Students’ reported confidence in their ability to understand science in general (e.g., posing scientific questions, interpreting tables and graphs, and understanding the content of their biology course) significantly outweighed their confidence in understanding evolution. We also show that those students with little incoming confidence in their understanding of evolution demonstrated more confidence and the most improved performance by the end of the semester. Collectively, our data indicate that regardless of prior experiences with evolution education, and in spite of myriad social challenges to teaching evolution, students can learn evolution.

We examined how college students' knowledge of evolution is associated with their self-described religious beliefs and the evolution-related content of their high school biology courses. On average, students entering college know little about evolution. Religious beliefs, the absence of evolution-related instruction in high school, and the presence of creationism-related instruction in high school were all associated with significantly lower scores on an evolution exam. We present an ordered logistic model that helps to explain (1) students' diverse views and knowledge of evolution, and (2) why college-level instruction about evolution often fails to significantly affect students' views about evolution.

All but a tiny percentage of scientists accept that evolution by natural selection is an established scientific theory. We accept evolution not because of some professional creed or inducement, but instead because of the overwhelming evidence. That evidence ranges from molecular data and comparative anatomy to fossils and biogeography. Nevertheless, instruction about evolution “has been absent, cursory, or fraught with misinformation” (Rutledge & Mitchell, 2002), and fewer than 30% of biology teachers consistently show that evolution has occurred and design their courses to show that evolution is a unifying theme in biology (Berkman & Plutzer, 2010). In socially conservative school districts, nearly 40% of biology teachers do not accept human evolution (Berkman & Plutzer, 2011). Despite decades of science education reform, many biology teachers continue to ignore, question, or reject evolution in favor of creationism as the best explanation for life’s diversity. There is “a pervasive reluctance of teachers to forthrightly explain evolutionary biology” (Berkman & Plutzer, 2011). Biologists have responded to this problem in many ways, the most popular of which is to provide educational opportunities and resources …

When Clarence Darrow came to Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925 to help defend John Scopes in the famous “Monkey Trial,” he was greeted by religious signs, a religious town, religious prosecutors, and a religious judge. Darrow lost the case. In 1927, Scopes' conviction was overturned, but his trial in Dayton became legendary. When Darrow and his family returned to Dayton in 1928, their visit made few headlines. Unlike what happened three years earlier, there were no shouting protesters, street-corner evangelists, or crowds of gawkers in the streets. Instead, Darrow was warmly received by several of his friends, who honored him at a dinner at the Aqua Hotel. After that visit, Darrow never again returned to Dayton—until now. In ensuing years, the spectacle of the Scopes Trial faded from the public's conscience. Despite revivals of interest produced by Inherit the Wind and flare-ups of the evolution-creationism controversy, many of Dayton's residents tired of hearing about the famous trial; as Rhea County Historian Pat Guffey …

Students enter college exceedingly confident that they will earn high grades and engage themselves fully in their courses (e.g., attend all of their classes and help-sessions, submit extra-credit work). However, students' grades and academic behaviors often do not match their expectations (Jensen & Moore, 2008; Moore, 2006b; Moore & Jensen, 2007a). This is especially true in introductory science courses, where grades and academic engagement are often low, even in courses taught by award-winning instructors (Congas et al., 1997; Friedman et al., 2001). Students' poor academic behaviors (e.g., skipping class, ignoring opportunities to improve their grades) often bewilder instructors, who understand that academic success depends largely on students' levels of academic engagement. In this study, we tried to understand what underlies students' academic behaviors and overconfidence. To do this, we analyzed the grades, academic behaviors, and academic predictions of students who earned differing final grades in a large introductory biology course. We asked three sets of questions, the first of which involved grades earned by students on exams throughout the course. How, on average, do students' grades fluctuate throughout the semester? Do students predict high grades late into the semester because their grades are high until late into the semester? The second set of questions involved students' beliefs about the academic behaviors that are important for success, such as class attendance, submission of extra-credit assignments, and attendance at help-sessions (Moore, 2006b; Moore & Jensen, 2007b). Students know that these behaviors are important for their academic success (Jensen & Moore, in press; Moore, 2003, 2006a). However, do students who earn different final grades actually exhibit different academic behaviors? Finally, we wondered how students' scores on exams throughout the semester affect students' confidence about their final grades. How accurately do students predict their grades throughout the semester? That is, how is students' confidence about their final grades affected by feedback (i.e., their grades on exams) that they receive during the semester? Methods Site of the Study & Its Students This study included 278 students enrolled in an introductory "mixed-majors" biology course at the University of Minnesota. The course covered topics typical of an introductory biology course, including evolution, cellular structure and function, molecular biology, genetics, and ecology. The population was 51% male and 49% female, averaged a 19.8 on the ACT, had a mean age of 19 years, and on average ranked in the 57th percentile of their high school classes. All students were taught in the same classroom by the same instructor who used identical syllabi, textbooks, grading rubrics, and pedagogical approaches. Grade Groups, Grade Cut-Offs & Determinations of Final Grades Students were grouped according to their final grades in the course, which were determined as follows: A= 90% and above, B= 80-89%, C= 70-79%, D= 60-69%, F= 59% and below. Course grades were calculated by averaging two equal scores: the exam score and the lab/homework score. The exam score (50%) included each of the three equally-weighted midterm exams (10% each) and a cumulative final exam (20%). The lab/homework score (50%) included the grade earned in the laboratory portion of the course (30%) and the homework component of the grade (20%), which was based on the completion of 15 assignments (some of which were done in class) throughout the semester. Class attendance was recorded every day with the submission of short, in-class writing assignments. Help Sessions An optional help-session was offered before each exam. These sessions were administered by a teaching assistant who had no knowledge of, or input to, the upcoming exams (i.e., students who attended the help-sessions got no "inside information" about that exam). …

The academic success of students in introductory science courses is influenced by a variety of factors, the most important of which is academic motivation (Moore, 2005, 2006, 2007; Thomas & Higbee, 2000). Students express their levels of academic motivation in many ways, including their class attendance, amount of studying, compliance with assignments, and participation in course-related activities. However, many of these motivation-related behaviors are difficult to study because they involve self-reported data (e.g., asking students how much they studied for an exam) that are highly unreliable (Caron et al., 1992; Sappington et al., 2002). Class attendance is a clear expression of students' academic motivation because it requires a clear and ongoing effort that is directly related to academic success (Launius, 1997). Although some studies have concluded that class attendance is not related to academic performance in non-science courses (e.g., Berenson et al.,1992; Hammen & Kelland, 1994; Thompson & Plummer, 1979), most studies of science courses have reported a strong correlation of class attendance and academic success (Launius, 1997; Moore, 2003, 2007). Does this correlation of grades and attendance extend to optional help-sessions that are often associated with introductory science courses? The purpose of this study was to determine how attendance at optional help-sessions is associated with students' grades in an introductory biology course. I wanted to answer several questions. For example, what students attend help- sessions? Students who are earning the lowest grades would presumably have the greatest need for (and would presumably reap the greatest benefit from) attending help-sessions; do these students attend help-sessions more often than other students? Is attendance at help-sessions associated with other motivation-related behaviors such as class attendance? Students who have not attended class would presumably have the greatest need to "catch up" on the course material; do these students come to help-sessions? Or are help-sessions attended by students who are earning the highest grades and who presumably have the least need for the sessions? Methods This study included 617 first-year students enrolled in several sections of an introductory biology course taught at the Twin Cities campus of the University of Minnesota. The course covered topics typical of a traditional introductory biology course for non-majors. All of the classes were taught by the same instructor, in the same way (e.g., same syllabus, textbook, grading policy), in the classroom, and with the same grading criteria. Students in the study had an average high school graduation percentile of 57 and an average ACT composite score of 21. Before each of the four exams, there was at least one help-session for students wanting help with course-related questions. Attendance at these help-sessions was optional; students received no points for attending, nor were they penalized for not attending, any of the sessions. The dates and times of the help-sessions were: * announced both orally and in the course syllabus on the first day of classes * announced in class one to two days before each session * posted on a classroom bulletin-board throughout the semester. On the first day of classes all students agreed that they would be able to attend at least one of the help-sessions. I tracked the following academic behaviors and performances: 1. Grades. I tracked students' grades on lecture exams and a comprehensive final. 2. Attendance in lecture and lab. I recorded attendance at every class. Students were told that effort (e.g., class attendance) is associated with academic success, but students received no points for coming to class. 3. Attendance at optional help-sessions. All of the help-sessions were conducted by graduate teaching assistants (TAs) who had no knowledge of, access to, or input regarding exams. …

Reading At Risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America, a 2004 report sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts, depicts a clear but bleak picture of the current status of reading. The survey sampled more than 17,000 adults and covered many demographic areas including age, gender, education, income, religion, race and ethnicity. Some specific findings of the study include: "the percentage of adult Americans reading literature has dropped dramatically over the past 20 years," "the decline in literary reading parallels a decline in total book reading," "literary reading is declining among whites, African Americans, and Hispanics," "literary reading is declining among all education levels," and "the steepest decline in literary reading is in the youngest age groups." Reasons for the decline in reading are many, but several sources point to television and the rise of Internet use, which is taking away from the reading audience. The importance of reading is rarely questioned. "Why read?" is usually answered by educators as a method to both expand a person's vocabulary and to introduce new ideas (i.e., learn). Reading researchers point to the use of words in cognition; the development of thoughts and ideas require the use of words and thus the more words that are available, the more thoughts that can be developed. These claims, and many more advocating the importance of reading, have been reinforced hundreds of times by studies examining the role of reading and early childhood education (e.g., Bowman, Donovan & Burns, 2001; Shonkoff ST Phillips, 2000). Clearly, children who read, and read in large quantities, perform better in school than children who do not. Many college courses have historically been associated with large amounts of reading. For example, many biology courses required students to read trade books such as Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (Carson, 1962), or James Watson's The Double Helix (Watson, 1980), but now most instructors elect to focus students' reading on course textbooks and study guides. As instructors know, these different kinds of books tell very different stories and elicit different responses from readers. For example, whereas Silent Spring was a bestseller that helped launch the "environmental movement," textbooks are often little more than massive, and very expensive, compendiums of facts that students seldom read, much less study. This has been documented by Burchfield and Sappington (2000) who found an overall decline in reading compliance in assigned textbook reading over a 16-year span. Despite the fact that reading levels are in decline, but the merits of reading remain in high regard, we designed and implemented a reading assignment for college freshman science students. The objective of this research project was to evaluate the assignment in terms of student opinions and its influence on overall course performance (i.e., course grades). Background This study took place at the University of Minnesota within General College (GC), a unit that provides developmental education to a wide array of students, including first-generation college students, students with disabilities, students of color, and non-native speakers of English. GC tries to improve students' academic skills to a point where they can transfer to other colleges within the university. Students in this study were enrolled in GC 1135: Human Anatomy and Physiology, a freshman-level class involving both lecture and lab. The course used universal design (Bowe, 2000; Johnson 8z Fox, 2003) as its foundation in that important curricular topics, such as muscle contraction or action potentials, were presented to students in a variety of instructional modes (e.g., lecture, cooperative groups, lab, on-line activities). Instructional methods such as cooperative quizzes (Jensen, Moore 8z Hatch, 2002) and art projects (Jensen, Moore, Hatch 8z Hsu, 2003) have been used in the course. In 2000 we decided to implement a reading project in our course that required all students to read a trade book. …

Despite decades of science education reform, a long string of legal defeats for creationists, the incorporation of evolution-based standards into states' science education requirements, and the repeated emphasis of evolution by scientific professional societies (National Association of Biology Teachers, 2002; Moore, 2002a-c, 2004, a-b), creationism remains overwhelmingly popular with the public (i.e., with our former students). For example, 45% of participants in a 1982 Gallup poll agreed with the statement that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so;" 40% agreed with "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process;" and 9% agreed with "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but god had no part in this process" (Scott, 1999). In an identical Gallup poll conducted in 2004, the responses were similar (Newport, 2004), and a study published in 2006 found that the acceptance of evolution is lower in the United States than virtually anywhere else in the world (Miller, Scott & Okamoto, 2006). As biology teacher John Scopes noted in 1966, "I don't think the world changes very rapidly" (Anonymous, 1966). Creationism also remains surprisingly popular among high school biology teachers throughout the United States (Eve & Harrold, 1991; Moore, 2004a-b; Riddle, 1941). For example, a variety of studies have shown that 15-30% of biology teachers in public schools teach creationism (Eve & Harrold, 1991; Trani, 2004; Zimmerman, 1987, and references therein). Although the teaching of creationism (including "intelligent design") in public school biology classes is clearly unlawful (Edwards v. Aguillard; Moore 2002a, 2004a, 2007), these teachers' actions are consistent with the public's desire to include creationism in science classrooms (Bergman, 1999). Confrontations of some of these teachers have produced lawsuits, all of which have been lost by creationists (Moore, 2002a, 2004a, 2007). Although the various studies of the teaching of creationism in biology classrooms have been informative, they have often involved political problems, small sample sizes, and limited responses (e.g., participants' responses were restricted to only the Christian stories of creation; Aguillard, 1999; Bergman, 1999; McKeachie, Lin & Strayer, 2002). Moreover, they have not addressed several important questions that I have tried to answer with this study. For example, * What version(s) of creationism do teachers teach? There are many different creation stories and, even within Christianity, many different types of creationism (Leeming & Leeming, 1994; Scott, 2004). Do biology teachers who include creationism in their courses teach several generic stories or a variety of specific stories? Or only one story? If teachers teach only one story, which story do they teach? * How do teachers present creationism? For example, do teachers present creationism as a religious idea? Or as a philosophical idea? Or as a scientific alternative to evolution (i.e., "creation science")? What I Did This study was conducted from fall, 2001 through fall, 2005 in a large, introductory non-majors biology course at the Twin Cities campus of the University of Minnesota. Students in the study came from throughout the United States, and particularly from Minnesota, and had an average ACT score of 22, an average age of 19, and an average high school graduation percentile of 54%. There were approximately equal percentages of male and female students having the following ethnic diversity: 51% Caucasian, 20% African American, 2% American Indian, 20% Asian American, 4% Chicano/Latina, and 3% undecided. To avoid the low return rates and other problems associated with direct surveys of teachers (e.g., a 29% return rate in Ohio; Zimmerman, 1987), I surveyed 1,465 freshmen who had taken high school biology in public schools. …

The call to wit, It students Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection has been made by a variety of professional organizations (e.g., American association for the Advancement of Science, 198,9; National Academy of Science, 1998; National Association of Biology Teachers, 1995; National Science Teachers Association, 1997). In addition to these national organizations, almost every state has science education guidelines calling for the teaching of evolution (Lerner, 2000; Moore, 2002). Many administrators and policymakers believe that evolution is being taught, but teachers know that it is far more important that evolution be learned. Standards and curriculum documents frequently specify what is to be taught, but then provide little help with assessment and evaluation. This paper provides .t scoring rubric that will help teachers evaluate students' understandings of biological evolution. Background In 1859 Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Modifications to his initial theory were made in the mid-1900s in what is now called "the new synthesis" or "die modern synthesis," by scientists such as Theodosius Dobzhansky, Gaylord Simpson, and others. I here modifications included the fields of embryology, systematics, and genetics that were advancing rapidly since Darwin's time. Despite these and other modifications, the core of Darwin's theory remains unchanged to this day. The following outline of Darwin's theory will contain terms and concepts that were not known to Darwin, but cart easily be assimilated into his original theory; Darwin's original ideas remain the backbone of modern evolutionary theory. Darwin's theory is complex in that many students, teachers, and even scientists frequently misunderstand and misuse it (Anderson, Fisher S: Norman, 2002; Bishop & Anderson, 1990; Rudolph & Stewart, 1998). However, its framework cart be divided into four straightforward components. Darwinian Component #1: Variation There exists within every population variation among individuals; the origin of that variation is chance. Darwin did not know of DNA, gene expression, or mutations, but he did observe variation within species. Darwin viewed the origin of variation as being chance. (The idea of chance as a driving force in nature is at the core of Darwin's theory, and is also central to the conflict,' debate with creationists.) Why does one bird feed at a different time than another? Why is one fish a different color than another? Why is one cheetah faster than another? Darwin in saw it all as being related to chance. The term "random" and the concept of mutations are two related items that fit into this component of Darwin's theory. Students' responses are frequently full of buzzwords, such as mutation, that are associated with evolution. Simply slating "there was a initiation' does not represent much comprehension, but if associated ideas are also included, there then exists evidence that a student has a beginning understanding of evolutionary processes. Darwinian Component #2: Genetics Organisms pass information front one generation to the next. A large section of this second component now relates to Medelian genetics, which post-dated Darwin, but he knew that something (i.e., information) was passed from generation to generation. Darwin developed his own theory of genetics that was based on blending inheritance-units called "gemmules," but that effort proved fruitless (Mayr, 1982). For students to rise this component, they must use phrases such as "the genes were passed to the next generation," or "information was passed to the next generation." Some students have difficulties with genetics concepts, which can be a significant barrier to a thorough understanding of evolution (e.g., Lawson & Thompsort, 1988). Darwinian Component #3: Differential Survival & Reproduction There occur in nature events in which some organisms die and others survive. …

In 1973, Theodosius Dobzhansky--one of the leading contributors to the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis--wrote in The American Biology Teacher that "... nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (Dobzhansky, 1973). Since then, a variety of scientific professional societies and science-education reforms have stressed the importance of teaching evolution in public schools. For example, the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) has declared that "Teaching biology in an effective and scientifically honest manner requires classroom discussions and laboratory experiences on evolution" (NABT, 2002), and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) encourages biology teachers "... to use evolution as the organizing theme in teaching biology" (NAS, 1998). Most biology teachers I've talked with claim that they comply with these guidelines; that is, they report that they emphasize evolution in their classrooms. However, for several years students in my introductory biology classes have scored disproportionately lower on evolution-related questions on a first-day-of-class exam than they do on questions about other biological topics. If teachers are, in fact, emphasizing evolution in their classes, why do so many entering freshmen know so little about the subject? I tried to answer this question by surveying Minnesota high school students and teachers about the teaching of evolution. Evolution should be taught effectively in Minnesota. Indeed, the Minnesota K-12 Framework for Science (2003), which Lerner (2000) evaluated as "good," states that "The focus of instruction in life science for all students at the high school level is on developing an understanding of cell structure and function, the relationship of matter and energy in biological systems, heredity, biological evolution, the behavior and interdependence of organisms and apply their understandings in a variety of situations" (p. 3192). The Framework also includes the National Science Education Standards (which discuss natural selection, similarities among organisms, common descent, and the age of Earth; National Research Council, 1996) and a curriculum entitled Life Sciences on Location 9-12 that includes natural selection and competition (p. 3-193). Similarly, Minnesota's Graduation Standards--High School Level require that all high school graduates "... understand biological change over time," including biodiversity and natural selection (p. 3-199). Minnesota's evolution-education standards are supported by the Minnesota Science Teachers Association, whose Board of Directors endorsed the position statement of the NABT (see above) and National Science Teachers Association (National Science Teachers Association, 2004). Clearly, there is strong and consistent administrative support for the teaching of evolution in biology classes of Minnesota's public schools. Creationism (e.g., "intelligent design") is explicitly rejected by the Minnesota Science Teachers Association and NABT, and is not included in Minnesota's science-education standards. In this study I tried to answer several questions related to these issues. For example, do high school biology teachers claim that they emphasize evolution in their classes? If so, to what extent? Do students agree? That is, do students believe that their biology teachers emphasize evolution? If so, to what extent? Methods Surveying Teachers I used the survey shown in Table 1 to understand teachers' and students' views of the teaching of evolution in Minnesota's public schools. To avoid the low return rates that have typified many evolution-related surveys (e.g., 29% in Ohio; see Zimmerman, 1987), I surveyed 107 randomly-selected Minnesota biology teachers who attended 1) the National Science Teachers Association convention held in Minneapolis, MN from October 30 through November 2, 2003, and 2) the Tenth Annual Biology-Life Sciences Teachers Conference held in St. Paul, MN on December 12, 2003. …

R aod LeVake began teaching in Faribault, Minnesota in 1984, when he was hired to teach math and science at Faribault Junior High School. During the summer of 1997, Rod was offered a job as a biology teacher at Faribault High School. After discussing the course with Dave Wieber (co-chairperson of the high school science department), Ken Hubert (co-chairperson of the high school science department), and Dave Johnson (the high school principal), and being told by Mr. Wieber that all teachers were expected to follow the prescribed curriculum, Rod accepted the position.' However, during Rod's first year of teaching biology, teachers became concerned about Rod's treatment of evolution. These teachers asked Rod about his treatment of evolution, and Rod informed them that "I can't teach evolution." When Rod was subsequently reassigned to a 9th-grade natural science course, he sued the school and its administrators, claiming that his reassignment was due to his religious views opposing evolution, and that not being able to teach his criticisms of evolution burdened his ability to freely practice his religion.2 He lost the case in District Court, but then began a lengthy appeal that ended on January 7, 2002 when the U.S. Supreme Court refused, without comment, to hear his case (LeVake v. Independent School District #656).

hen instructors hear the phrase "cooperative quiz," many word-associations come to mind: cheating, freeloading, easy points, etc. If structured correctly, however, cooperative quizzes can serve three important functions: 1) they can facilitate a greater understanding of the subject (e.g., genetics, anatomy and physiology, etc.), 2) they can promote better test-taking skills, and 3) they can be used as a mechanism to foster cooperative groups. The benefits of cooperative learning are well documented (Lord 2001; Johnson & Johnson 1989; Slavin 1991) but most instructors are reluctant to use it as a teaching tool because it requires extra planning, it is not as easy as lecturing, and many believe that it takes time away from delivering content. Cooperative quizzes are not a reliable testing tool because they cannot accurately measure an individual's knowledge, but they are a versatile learning tool that can be used in both the lecture and lab. This paper describes the structure needed for a cooperative quiz, documents how the quizzes can be used in different settings, and compares students' performances on a group vs. individual quiz. Theoretical Underpinnings of Cooperative Learning

Like most biology teachers, I spend much of my introductory biology course talking about evolution. Some of the discussion is explicit and traditional--for example, how Charles Darwin's father paid for Charles' adventure aboard the Beagle; the Beagle's stop in the Galapagos Islands; Darwin's work at Down House (Figures 1, 2); Darwin being "outed" by Alfred Russel Wallace; and the publication and impact of Darwin's masterpiece, On the Origin of Species. I then talk about some of the evidence for evolution, and repeatedly return to those ideas throughout the rest of the term. During the last week of classes, we talk about animal behavior, and I discuss kin selection. Although I've taught introductory courses for almost three decades, I still get excited about how, in this and several other instances, evolution explains what would otherwise be seemingly isolated, inexplicable "facts." Without fail, my blood pressure goes up, I become more animated, and I finally end the class--not by plan, but simply in appreciation and excitement--with something like "That ... is ... so ... cool." It's hard to disagree with Daniel Dennett's claim that Darwin's idea is the best idea ever. (Dennett, 1996). [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] Although I greatly admire what Darwin did, I'm not among those who deify him. He was lucky to have rich parents, who gave him a remarkably privileged life characterized by servants, financial security, and never having to work. Like all of us, Darwin also had some quirks, and in his later years, Darwin became a virtual recluse. He never visited his daughter Anne's grave (he also skipped her funeral), nor did he attend the funerals of those to whom he owed so much (e.g., Charles Lyell). Most people have attributed some of these behaviors to Darwin's poor health. Darwin was lucky that his inherited riches accommodated the extravagances of such a privileged, isolated life. Regardless, however, there is no denying what Darwin accomplished. [FIGURE 2 OMITTED] The other big ideas of Darwin's time--those of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud come to mind--have now faded, and are seldom mentioned. In contrast, Darwin's idea about evolution by natural selection--despite 150 years of intense scientific scrutiny and even stronger religious resistance--continues to define and point the way to answers for many of the central questions of modern biology. Evolution by natural selection unifies the study of biology; without evolution, biology is little more than lists of definitions, isolated (albeit interesting) facts, and an occasional dissected frog. With this issue, The American Biology Teacher pauses to acknowledge the impact of Charles Darwin on our profession and society. This is quite a task, for Darwin's impact is hard to overestimate. Indeed, Darwin himself has become a large, thriving industry, and Darwin's image and name appear throughout society (Figure 3). Darwin's popularity persists despite the fact that Darwin's idea, like some other great ideas in science, questions one of our most defining traits--namely, our self-ascribed importance. Whereas geologists have taught us how little time our species has inhabited our ancient Earth, and astronomers have shown us the tiny place of our planet in the cosmos, Darwin has taught us that we share a long, incredible heritage with other organisms, and that we aren't nearly as special (and certainly not god-like) as many people would like to believe. …

I NHERIT the Wind is one of the most popular plays and movies in American history. It appears regularly on Broadway and television, is available as a rental at most video stores, and is a favorite production of amateur theaters across the country. Indeed, Inherit the Wind is performed almost every night somewhere in the world. Inherit the Wind has also been used extensively as an educational film in science, history, and social studies classes to study the Scopes trial; I have vivid memories of spending most of a week's worth of classes in high school watching and discussing Inherit the Wind. At the time, I knew relatively little about the Scopes trial or the issues surrounding the evolution/ creationism controversy, but for many years thereafter I assumed that the film was factually accurate. Others have made similar assumptions. For example, I overheard three conversations about Inherit the Wind at the 1998 annual meeting of the National Association of Biology Teachers; each of these conversations was based on Inherit the Wind being an accurate portrayal of the Scopes trial. Perhaps these perceptions (i.e., that Inherit the Wind is an accurate historical account of the Scopes "monkey trial") are understandable; after all, the book Inherit the Wind claims to describe "the most explosive trial of the century," and posters and other advertisements link the movie version of Inherit the Wind with the Scopes trial by announcing that the movie is "All About the Famous 'Monkey Trial' That Rocked America!" Although Inherit the Wind includes some historically accurate moments,'

A fter Epperson v. Arkansas declared anti-evolution laws unconstitutional in 1968, creationists changed their tactics. Rather than try to ban the teaching of evolution, creationists claimed that creationism and evolution were of equal scientific merit, and therefore should be given "equal time" and "balanced treatment" in science classes of public schools. The "creation science" movement was unveiled to the public in the fall of 1970, when Henry Morris (the most influential creationist of this century)1 offered a course titled "Scientific Creationism" at Christian Heritage College (San Diego, CA). That course, which was Morris' first public use of the phrase "scientific creationism," found a believing audience. Soon thereafter, Morris and his creationist colleagues began producing all sorts of textbooks (e.g., Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, published in 1970), newsletters (e.g., Creation Research Society Quarterly, published in 1971), and handbooks (e.g., Scientific Creationism, published in 1974) to promote their cause. Morris pandered to the faithful with claims that creationism was the source of Americanism (e.g., as in Creation and the Modern Christian), whereas evolution was responsible for Nazism, abortion, Marxism, and everything else evil in the world (e.g., as in The Long War Against God: The History and Impact of the Creation! Evolution Conflict). According to Morris and his followers, special creation-and not evolution-was the most certain truth of science. "Creation science" became increasingly popular throughout the 1970s. In 1979, a front-page article in the Wall Street Journal warned the country that creationists had built up "a full head of steam" for their attempt to invade the classrooms of public schools.2 Science education leaders such as William Mayer (the director of BSCS) tried to counter the creationists' efforts, but it was too late. By the early 1980s, "creation science" had flooded the country.

I N 1968, Epperson v. Arkansas legalized the teaching of evolution in Arkansas, ruled that laws banning the teaching of evolution were unconstitutional, and made it unconstitutional to ban the instruction of one theory and not another. That is, Epperson v. Arkansas outlawed attempts to prevent public school teachers from discussing evolution, and announced that evolution is not religion (Moore 1998c, Levy 1986). Subsequent court rulings have upheld the right of a school district to require a teacher to teach evolution and not creationism. For example

JoHN Scopes' conviction in 1925 for teaching human evolution gave fundamentalists a victory, just as William Jennings Bryan's death gave them a martyr. Whereas some northern states quietly disposed of anti-evolution legislation after Scopes' conviction,' Mississippi and Arkansas passed their own anti-evolution laws. In states that had no anti-evolution laws, there often were local restrictions on the teaching of evolution, as well as enough fundamentalists to keep people "stirred up" (de Camp 1968, 1969). Despite predictions to the contrary, the ACLU could find no one in Tennessee willing to challenge the Butler Law for which Scopes was convicted (Scopes goes free, but law is upheld, 1927; Will ask court to rehear case, 1927). Although none of the anti-evolution laws was challenged for decades, the Scopes trial (which inspired Inherit the Wind; see Moore 1998a) remained an emotional topic. For example, the Arkansas Gazette said in an editorial that "For the state of Tennessee, the Scopes trial has been a moral disaster" (as quoted in Kazan 1966c). Interest

T HE Scopes trial, which was started for economic reasons and fostered for political ones, ended abruptly on 21 July 1925 with the conviction of John Scopes (see Figure 1 above). On the day after the verdict, The Dayton Herald (Tennessee) ran. a simple headline: "Jury Retums Verdict of 'Guilty' in Scopes Case." The accompanying story summarized many of the events associated with the trial, which it described as "a world-watched, nation-wide drama" that was "the bitterest legal battle ever waged in the United States."'l As Scopes helped visitors leave Dayton, legislator-tumed-corespondent John Butler (who had written the anti-evolution statute for which Scopes was convicted) reported that (de Camp 1968)

A LTHOUGH evolution is the unifying theme for understanding life and "one of the best documented, most compelling and exciting concepts in all of science" (Gould 1983), it is being challenged-not by new discoveries, but by the evangelical zealotry of religious fundamentalists. Despite consistently clear court-decisions, extensive discreditation of creationism, and overwhelming evidence supporting evolution (see Prelli 1989; Hays 1983; Scott 1997; and references therein), creationism has become an increasingly popular belief (e.g., Sinclair and Pendarvis 1998; Monsour 1997). For example, a recent poll conducted by the National Science Board (1996) reported that most adult Americans reject the idea that humans developed from earlier species of animals. Similarly, a 1991 Gallup poll found that 47% of Americans believe that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." Only 9% believe that "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process" (Gallup & Newport 1991). By comparison, a majority of scientists take the naturalist view shared by only 9% of Americans. It is hard to imagine any other issue for which there is such a difference between laypeople and experts (see discussion in Shermer 1997). Given the public's acceptance of creationism, it is not surprising that creationists' beliefs (and the antievolution claims that accompany them) are becoming increasingly common in classrooms. For example

Most biologists reject the supernatural as a valid scientific explanation for understanding nature. To us, such explanations (e.g. demons, special creation) are scientifically useless because-among other things-they are supported by no testable evidence, provide no testable hypotheses, and produce no new directions for research. However, some biologists disagree-they embrace the supernatural as a way of understanding the world. For example, a surprising number of biology teachers are creationists who preach biblical literalism and similar claims (e.g. that all life began over six 24-hour periods, that plants appeared before the sun, that dinosaurs became extinct because they fell off Noah's Ark). Other creationists try to disguise their belief in the supernatural by euphemistically claiming to be "theistic evolutionists." According to these creationists, a deity has intervened in the biological history of humans, and evolution is "God's way" of explaining life's diversity. Although this perspective is neither scientific nor testable, it is popular; creationists are powerful forces for using science classes to preach religion and salvation. If these creationists weren't damaging enough to science and enlightened thinking, let me introduce you to the newest opponents of science education: the "secular creationists" of the academic left.' Here are a few of the key claimsalways presented in deliberately tortuous and pretentious language2-made by these intelligent and seemingly angry people