The Impact Of Religion On The Public School System

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.

Jews, but how does that differ from a small country town in Oklahoma where the

Issues involving public schools and religion have been topics involving intense debate. It is difficult for the government to elucidate the appropriate boundaries of religion in the public schools. It is true that teaching about religion is permitted in the public education systems, but the real question is where the margin should be set between teaching religion and simply teaching about religion. It is almost impossible to teach about the history of the United States without teaching that religious beliefs associated with the history, artwork, and literature. More than the public is lead to believe, The Constitution permits religious activities in and around public school buildings. It is unfortunate that 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

The 1987 case Edwards v. Aguillard requires any religiously-related instruction to have ?a clear secular purpose? [482 U.S. 578]. The legislation addressed in this case?the Creationism

To answer this question a good understanding of Intelligent Design is essential. As stated, it is the belief that life or the universe was created by an outside being or intelligence. The said intelligence does not have to be a god. Who or what created life is up to the believer. People can believe in different creators but still support the same Intelligent Design theory. Intelligent Design (ID) just acknowledges that the universe was created by something and not randomly formed. Many scientists, along with non- experts, believe in ID because biological structures are so complex and suitable for life it seems that they would have to be carefully designed. This may sound similar to creationism, however it is very

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

In 2006, the organisation “Truth in Science” (2006) sent a free resource pack to the Head of Science in every UK secondary school and every sixth form college. “The resource pack aimed to describe and criticise Darwin’s theory of evolution on a scientific basis and suggests that the living world is intelligently designed”. At about the same time, The Atlas of Creation was published (Yahya, 2007) and widely distributed to scientists and educators around the world. These events resulted in the publication of literature examining creationism and intelligent design (Jones and Reiss, 2007; Allgaier, 2008; Allgaier, 2010; Hokayem and BouJaoude, 2008; Williams, 2008; Alexakos, 2009). Creationism and intelligent design seem to be on the increase (Graebsch and Schiermeier, 2006; Chinsamy and Plagányi, 2007; Mercer, 2007; Kutschera, 2008) and there are more countries in which schools are facing the controversy over evolution and creationism. However, the UK is the only country that has produced explicit guidance on the issues of creationism or intelligent design in the science classroom. In summer 2007, the DCSF published “Guidance on Creationism and Intelligent Design”. The report points out that the use of the word ‘theory’ in science can be misleading as it differs from the everyday meaning. In science the term is used when there is substantial evidence to support it. The Guidance goes on to state:

The battle of creationism and evolutionary theory is not a new one. That being said, in order to understand whether creationism has a place in secondary education, one must first understand the complexity of the matter. Evolution in itself is a theory proposed by Charles Darwin in 1859. Grossly simplified, the theory states that life evolved from non-life; the concept of descent with modification. This theory arouses conflict because many Christians believe that it negates the literal interpretation of the biblical creation story. It is from this story that the theory of creationism began. While some may argue that creationism deserves to be taught alongside evolutionary theory within the science curriculum of secondary schools of a municipality or state, these individuals are mistaken. Creationism is not a science, therefore by teaching it one violates the first amendment and also further develops the religious inequality that its supporters argue teaching it creates. There is no place for creationism in the science curriculum within secondary public education.

Teaching Creationism or Intelligent Design to our youth can be done in a way that is neither opinion based nor completely fact based, but may hold some risk of personal interpretation. The first thing needed to be considered is how can children of the middle school age range grasp such a deep subject and have the capacity to reach their own conclusion. Information found regarding the development of children in this developmental range was found in the book titled "Characteristics of Middle Grade Students,” Caught in the Middle by the Sacramento Department of Education. It was found that students of this age hold a variety of learning attributes that support the belief that children can handle both sides of this controversial issue. Some

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.

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.

Since the dawn of mankind religion has been one of the most significant elements of a society’s social and cultural beliefs and actions. However, this trend has declined due to the general increase in knowledge regarding our the natural sciences. Where we had previously attributed something that we didn’t understand to the working of a higher power, is now replaced by a simple explanation offered by natural sciences. While advocates of Religion may question Natural Sciences by stating that they are based on assumptions, it is important to note the Natural Sciences are based on theories and principles which can be proven using mathematical equations and formulas. Faith however contrasts from the easily visible feasibility of data