Science Act Hypothesis

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.

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

Thesis: It is patently absurd to argue that creationism and / or intelligent design deserve a place in public school textbooks in the "science" chapter or in any way near to the chapter on evolution. The United States Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and freedom of expression, so all faiths and denominations have the absolute right to worship and believe as they

If approved, the bill would require intelligent design to be taught alongside any evolutionary theory in order to present an ?explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin?s view?. Additionally, it would require a statement to be read that expresses doubts about Darwinist theories (Baksa 1).

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.

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

Louisiana legislators established the Louisiana Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act. The Act forbids the teaching of the theory of evolution and the theory of “creation science” in public elementary and secondary schools unless accompanied by the instruction of the theory other. The Act defines the theories as the scientific evidence for creation or evolution and inferences from those scientific evidence. The lower courts established that the Act violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it lacked a clear secular purpose.

In the late nineteen-eighties, Edwards v. Aguillard argued that a Louisiana law was against the First Amendment of the Constitution. This law prohibited public schools from teaching about evolution and the evolutionary processes unless the topic was taught alongside religious based creation theories. More specifically, this law imposed on public schools was argued to have broken the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This clause simply says that absolutely no law can establish or support a religion (“Establishment Clause”, 2011). Many people challenged the state’s law including local parents and teachers as well as men and women with religious affiliations. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that the state’s act was unlawful according to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment due to the fact that there was no non-religious basis to the act. The creation theories are entirely based around the idea that an all-powerful god created the human race. Therefore the state is promoting this religious teaching. Although it was argued that the act was to give students more opportunities to learn, the point was made that the teachers lost the power to make decisions in his or her own classroom. Furthermore, the law inhibits the learning of children by banning the teaching of evolution unless creation is also taught in the classroom. The law

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

There are some demarcations to science from pseudo-science and non-science (Hansson, 2008). Science aims to unravel the way the natural world is and explain how it is and why it works in a particular manner (Hobson, 2001 & Bunge, 1982). It answers few of these questions by demonstrating the cause and the effects of various actions by presenting in descriptive and explanatory claims (Parse, 1995). Scientists prove their findings by explaining

Whenever creationism or intelligent design has been brought into public schools, the courts have found it unconstitutional. Creationism is considered to be religion, not science. Teaching it in schools violates the separation of church and state which violate the First Amendment of the Constitution. This means that public schools are prohibited from promoting religion or religious beliefs. Religious explanations of creation cannot be part of the public school science curriculum. It is illegal to teach anything that contradicts the bible. The fundamentalist values are the bible is the literal truth of creation, religion stands against science, faith is more valuable than science and taxpayers should decide how their children are taught and

Ruse states that for a theory to be considered scientific, it must have five characteristic features. These five features include: natural law must guide the theory, it must make explanatory reference to natural law, it must be

In addition, laypersons try to find a theory that refutes Darwin's theory because they do not believe that man evolved from a lower order of animals. The layperson’s explanation about Intelligent Design theory is not related to its definition. The fallacy they meet in Intelligent Design theory is hasty generalization because they cannot find some convinced evidences to support their opposing argument, and they give the religious topic in a scientific class while science and religion have nothing to do with it. Moreover, these laypersons have a religious bias because they cannot accept the origin of man from animals. With these laypersons, only God create human since God created everything fully-formed, including humans, in just six

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

In 1859, Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, introducing the theory of evolution. One hundred and fifty-six years later, scientists still accept this senseless philosophy. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay states, “Our school systems teach the children that they are nothing but glorified apes who are evolutionized out of some primordial soup” (Snyder). Schools worldwide have presented exactly this to the young, impressionable minds of your future doctors, engineers, scientists, and presidents. They assure us that if we give a small amount of mud enough time it can, by itself, bring about the art of da Vinci, the plays of Shakespeare, the music of Mozart, and the brilliant mind of Einstein.