The Debate of Orgin: Creationsim versus Evolutionism

Creationism has long been ruled out of public education and science. Creationists reject most of modern science in favor of a literal reading of the Bible. They believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and God created everything fully formed (including humans). People in opposition against Intelligent Design think that in the eyes of creationists, the so called “intelligent designer” is God. Meanwhile, Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor. Once Darwin had proposed that the natural processes could have produced every species on this planet, including humans, the creationists felt that this theory took God out of the picture. Centuries later, like many people in Dover, many people in the US agree. Somewhere between a third and half the US population doesn’t accept

I. Acceptance of Creation is growing in spite of overwhelming evidence proving Evolution There is no easy resolution for whats true and evolution or creationism. It is a complex topic with profound scientific, religious, educational, and criticism. How can a student or parent come to grips with this issue? Evolution vs. Creationism provides a badly needed, comprehensive, and balanced introduction to the many facets of the current debates about what should be taught in a classroom or in reality itself. Evolution relies on scientific facts while creationism clings on biblical beliefs. But the legal and

I believe that the state should not tell people what to believe. Everyone has their own mind and they have the right to believe what they want to believe. I see nothing wrong with teachers teaching about Darwinism or Creationism. I think that everyone should be educated on both matters. There is nothing wrong with knowing information about both subjects, and believing or not believing in them. It is the job of teachers to educate the students on people’s ideas and findings from their research. Once a teacher is telling students what they should or shouldn't do then it is a problem. In the movie, Inherit the Wind, there are many instances where I believe that Bert Cates should not have been found guilty for educating his students on the

The question as to whether or not creationism should be taught in public schools is a very emotional and complex question. It can be looked at from several different angles, its validity being one of them. Despite the lack of evidence to support the fundamentalist idea of creationism, that in itself is not enough to warrant its exclusion from the curriculum of public schools in the United States. The question is far more involved and complex.

In the film Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, a small, rural town in Dover, Pennsylvania is being analyzed for its Kitzmiller vs. Dover court case. Dover is a school district in Pennsylvania whose school board argued that their students should be aware of Intelligent Design as an alternative to teaching Darwinism. There are several arguments being discussed throughout this documentary. The most expressed argument is whether not Intelligent Design should be taught in schools. Some other prevailing arguments are the belief that Intelligent Design and creationism are the same thing, the argument that evolution is neutral to religion, and the argument that evolution should not be questioned no matter what. Questions such as these captivate the mind and makes people wonder what the real truth is.

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

Case law supporting the absence of the instruction of intelligent design theory from secular, public education cites several main grounds for exclusion, including the unconstitutionality of ?sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity? [397 U.S. 664].

The argument has been going on for years and years. Should schools be allowed to teach evolution without teaching creationism? The courts have ruled, the answer is no, the theory of creationism cannot be included in a public school’s academic curriculum. With the court’s decision, it has been made clear there is no place for faith based theories to be taught in our public schools. What if there was a different approach that took God out of the equation? Public high schools should allow a course in intelligent design to be included in the curriculum as a way of teaching both evolution and creationism without violating the separation of church and state. This is certainly easier said than done.

Our core values are built upon freedom. Freedom from tyranny, freedom from control, freedom to choose. A student should have the option to learn whatever it is they desire, whether it be evolution, or creationism, because it is our right to choose what to believe. There was a true story based on an argument where science was not allowed to be taught, but religion was. It correlates to the novel Inherit the Wind. The plot settles in a trial held between two defendants lawyers battling it out of the science versus Evolution. A school teacher named Cates, who got arrested and went to jail because he taught evolution in a science class. I believe that evolution should be taught in science classes and that school teachers being arrested due to

Even though there is a large quantity of people that believe that creationism is not able to be proven scientifically, it should have at least a little prevalence in public schools. It should be in history classes. There are far too many historic events to bring up that have had quite a handful to do with creationism, especially with that of Christianity, but here are some of the more important ones: the Crusades, which lasted from 1095 to 1291 (there were multiple crusades). They consisted of European Christian armies taking over various bits of large land, such as Israel. And yes, they were needlessly violent and usually ended up with a ground littered with the corpses of fallen Israel soldiers and

The Dover Area School Board passed a resolution offering Intelligent Design as an alternative theory to Darwin’s theory of evolution in public school. Tammy Kitzmiller sued the Dover school board in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The federal question brought to the court by the plaintiff was whether Intelligent Design was an offshoot policy of creationism. Moreover, does Intelligent Design constitute an establishment of religion, prohibited by the First Amendment, made applicable by the Fourteenth Amendment? Judge Jones presided over the case and held that Intelligent Design was not science, but religion. The Judge also ruled that the Dover School Board violated the Establishment Clause by implementing religion in public

Intelligent design supporters have believed that a low-key approach is in order to be more successful ,rather than simply asking educational institutions to require that intelligent design be taught. Instead, they ask only that schools teach the controversy surrounding evolution, arguing that broadening the discussion will foster critical thought. (Clemmitt, 2005)

It would be an understatement to claim that the realms of faith and reason rarely conflict. Since the earliest days of scientific inquiry, these two spheres of thought have been locked in a vicious battle, only letting up as religion has gradually modernized to accommodate newer understandings of the universe. But, as is the nature of any age-old debate, the fires fueling this conflict have once again been fed, this time with the controversy surrounding the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools. The proponents of this alternative “theory” to the origins of life claim that they have been silenced by the Darwinian establishment and support integrating their ideas into the classroom through such means as textbook disclaimers or

In an article published in the New York times, by Laurie Goodstein, she revealed that a poll conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, revealed that 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism. It is important to note by this poll that the idea of teaching our children other theories of how this world was created was supported by more than half of the polled population. It needs to be understood that when these teachings are given the opportunity to be introduced in the public school settings, teachers must maintain a very bias approach as to not sway their students into believing one side or the other but, rather let them decide for themselves through research and study what they will believe in.

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.