Analysis: Should Creationism Be Taught In Schools

The theory behind the origin of life has always been a sensitive and delicate topic. There are many ideas or theories of how this planet and all life forms on it appeared. However, there have been two main ideas battling for decades, creationism and evolution. Creationism is the idea where a divine power created all matter and life. Evolution is a scientific theory that current species have evolved from ancestral species over time. This debate made its debut into classrooms in 1925, during the Scopes Monkey Trial. Issues surrounding evolution and creationism in the classroom are still prevalent today. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”. The Establishment Clause is a provision to the First Amendment prohibiting the government from creating any law “respecting an establishment of religion”. This amendment and clause are repeatedly referenced in

The theory of evolution was created by Charles Darwin. It is the theory that everything was made by the Big Bang and so, life began. From there, life began to evolve. Charles Darwin also believes that we humans evolved from homo sapiens, which are apes. Intelligent design and creationism are the opposite of the theory of evolution. They are the theory that life and everything along with it, was created by a higher intelligence(Intelligent Design Network). Half of all Americans believe in creationism, but U.S courts still rule against teaching creationism in school(Adler). How is that fair if Darwinians are allowed to teach the theory of evolution in school? It goes against many religions and should not be allowed to be taught at schools, just as creationism is not allowed to be taught at schools. The theory of evolution should not be taught at public schools because it is a matter of religion, it is

The theory of evolution is one of today’s most unmistakable themes in science education and public debate. This book helps provide a logical understanding and critical thinking skills that can be used to see past the lies being taught in public schools today. This book is often known as a handbook for students, parents, and teachers countering the latest arguments for evolution. In this book, one will find that it does not take a genius to disprove, or refute even the best arguments against evolution. In fact, it is the simplicity of the logic that makes for the book’s

     The next debate on why creationism should not be taught in schools is based on The First Amendment. The First Amendment states that the government shall make no laws endorsing or prohibiting any religious believe. Public schools are funded by the government. Requiring the Biblical teachings of creationism to be taught in school promotes the Christian religion. According to the First Amendment, a public organization that is funded by the government can not promote one religion over another. For public schools to be able to comply with the First Amendment, they would have to offer equal time to every religion’s view on the creation of life on Earth, which would be impossible and once again, turn a biology class into a theology class.

In some states, textbooks briefly talk about evolutionism and immediately go back to talking about the biological sciences of our existence. With this being like a faux pa in textbooks, the legislation passed has no effect on it. The next aspect I wanted to write about was the notion of creationism by itself. If we were to teach creationism, how would we teach it? Generally speaking, creationism is the rejection, not the acceptance of evolution in the genesis of human life. There are a variety of concepts that may be true about where we came from, and some have more theories to back it up. It is important to also include that creationism does not oppose the idea of biological evolution, though that is the main idea in the issue of its controversy. The aspect of creationism is like the theory of plate tectonics. It is not proven, but it is the best theory out there of what really happens. As with evolution, there is no concrete statements to back up that it really happened, but it could be one of the best theories of what really

As a member of the school board, I believe that it is in the school’s and children’s best interest for me to thoroughly examine the Discovery Institute’s “The Theory of Intelligent Design: A Briefing Packet for Educators, before it is allowed to be taught in the school’s biology curriculum. I need to make sure that this packet is not conflicting with the material that the students have already been taught. Within the briefing packet I found many claims that conflict with Darwin’s theory of evolution, which we have already been teaching the students. This is slightly concerning, considering that the students might become confused as to what is the correct information. To make sure that it would be in the school’s best interest to include Intelligent Design in the biology curriculum I have decided to compare the two theories side by side. By comparing what we are already teaching the students through books like Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin I will be able to give my opinion of whether or not the curriculum should include the theory of Intelligent Design.

Despite great efforts to convince the opposing belief for centuries, 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, the 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 information, schools should present information about both evolution and creation to students and promote a self-deciding way of learning rather than forcing students to believe one theory over another. Benjamin Franklin stated, “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” (Morris 1). Those who already have a firm belief either for evolution of for creation will support their view no matter what is taught in schools. However, the population of people, who lack an opinion, deserve the right to receive information of both theories in school. Devout evolutionists, as well as creationist, connect strong emotion to the controversy of what should be taught in public school systems, yet to

As I grew older and learned about evolution my beliefs were strongly challenged with no merit. The problem I had with both scenarios was that they are both THEORIES. A good example of me questioning what these theories actually meant is when I went through grade-school, the pledge of allegiance had been removed because it had the word God in it. As a young child I questioned the fact of why I couldn’t say it in school. Later on, as I entered high-school, our class had scratched the surface on evolution and I wondered why we were not taught creationism as well, and why we were not allowed to make our own decision of what we were being taught throughout school. According to a Gallup poll of 1,016 U.S. adults about 45 percent of those surveyed favored the statement “God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years” (Fitch 1). If the survey showed an almost even split of both theories then why are we forced to learn only evolution in schools? Scientists and science educators have concluded that evolution should be taught in science classes because it is the only tested, comprehensive, scientific explanation for the nature of the biological world today that is supported by overwhelming evidence and widely accepted by the scientific community (National Academy of Sciences 53). As a society that has proven itself wrong time and time again how can we for sure say the “Big Bang theory” is where our ancestors came from and everything around us came to be? The problem with religion is that there are many of them and they each have their own opinions. If creationism were to be taught in schools, it would be too complex to tailor a way for it to be accepted by every one of them. In this conflict of interest, the final

Creationism is defined as the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution. Both beliefs are extremely different from each other causing questions to arise in the public school system. When people who believe in Creationism want it taught, evolutionist shoot it down as religious. When people who believe in Evolution want it to remain the focus of existence, creationist argue it is not fact. As reported by the American Chemical Society, “evolution is the scientifically accepted explanation of the incontrovertible fact that life and its many forms has changed over the years” (“Teaching of Evolution: Fact and Theory”). Typically, when it comes to what people accept, they are unwavering. However, there are always some people who don’t exactly know what to trust. When evolution is taught in schools most of the students acquiesce the information, whether it is right or

Certainly many Americans in favor of teaching both theories may do so for the sake of imparting critical thinking skills to our schoolchildren. Costley and Killins agree with this notion, emphasizing that true academics teaches schoolchildren alternate theories as well as analytical thinking (5). As a result, creationists weigh in heavily at schools, compelling them to introduce other scientific theories dealing with the origin of life (Raymo 152). In this regard, when it applies to all area of academics, many more people would agree. Teaching only one theory on any matter seems indicative of a totalitarian form of education. Therefore, teachers should want to introduce students to as many alternative theories as possible. However, the dissenting theories they present must have factual ground on which to stand on. Since the theory of creationism stands on shaky ground scientifically, it should have no place in science education classes.

For years the United States government, and the majority of the science community, has been pushing creationism out of the science classroom in favor of evolution, because creationism is considered unscientific by most scientists (Baker). Many scientists think that creationism shouldn’t even be mentioned, for fear of legitimizing what they think is unscientific (Reece). Regardless of all of this, the United States public acceptance of evolution remains low and support for creationism remains high compared to other western countries (Baker). Because of this there are some scientists and educators pushing for teachers to start

Another locus of this issue in in its legality. Both sides in whether we should teach it versus us not teaching it both have had legal debate, arguing whether or not it’s a constitutional question. They both also have the advocating that teaching creationism is protected by the first amendment or it would be violating the first amendment. both of these would fall under the free exercise of religion clause stated in the amendment. Creationists next attempted to argue that their ideology shouldn’t be boycotted on the basis of separation in churches and in states, as it is science, not religion. The result of this was the Arkansas government passing a bill that stated there must be a "balance" between what they referred to as "creation-science"

In order to teach about the earliest man in a nonbiased way, I believe that public schools should not shelter students from either side. It would be a bit unfair to only show one side of the subject matter. I think it would be good to expose students to a perspective they’re not used to; they would be able to have even more knowledge on evolution and creationism. It’s a very debatable topic, but students should understand that neither standpoint can be considered factually correct. Teaching both topics as theories would be the ideal way to approach it. A majority of Americans are not familiar with Creationism, which is why I think it would be practical to teach both theories. On the other hand, evolution is a concept that many people are familiar

Alan Leshner, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of Science magazine, once stated, “Science classrooms are for the teaching of science. Inserting a belief system such as intelligent design (Creationism) into the science classroom conflicts with the principles of science education. In science classes, students learn that scientists do not accept a theory based on what they want to believe, but only after repeated observation and experiments provide evidence to support the theory. Since intelligent design theory has yet to offer any testable hypotheses, it remains a matter of belief, not science, and as such should not be taught in science classes” (Leshner). In this quote, Leshner brilliantly sums up why Evolution should be taught in science classes and why Creationism should not be taught in science classes. He mentions that if a person inserts their belief system into a science class it will conflict with the principles of science education. This shows how religious dogma interferes with science. The science being taught in public classes should be based on empirical evidence, not one’s personal

     Many believe that creationism in our school systems is unconstitutional. This idea is false. The constitution actually protects creationism in the classroom. The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. ..." This clause means, among other things, that the government may not offend any citizen by telling him that his religious belief is false and that he should believe in some other belief mandated by the government. Thus, when the States’ schools teach a student who believes in creation by God, that evolution is a fact, even though it cannot be proved a fact, the State is telling the student that his or her