Why Creationism Should Be Taught

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

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

The problem in scientific creationism, and what I see as a reason for its exclusion from the science classroom in public schools, is the fact that it looks as if, from the outside, the whole theory that it rest on is simply a contortion of the traditional version of creation described in Genesis, custom-made to fit in with Darwin’s theory of evolution. R. M. Hare would probably say that scientific creationism is simply a modification of the story of creation in Genesis, to fit into the ÒblikÓ of the religious fundamentalist. A blik, as Hare describes it, is a pre-set worldview held by all people, in which they draw from when forming certain opinions on any particular subject. In the case of religious fundamentalist, whose faith in the validity of the Book of Genesis is an essential part of their blik, it becomes necessary for them to contort their literal view of the Book of Genesis into a form that is scientifically acceptable. For this reason, creation science still does not have a place in the science classroom of public schools.

Robinson, in her essay, claims that while Creationism is owned by “Religious Right”, Darwinism is owned by “Irreligious Right”2. She writes that the differences between the two are meaningless and that the people who defend religion make religion seem foolish while the defenders of science attributed to objectivity. Many people believe that Creationism and Darwinism do not belong together and are about as similar as cats and dogs. Just as there are cat people and dog people, there are people who stick to one belief or the other in the creation versus evolution debate. Robinson disagrees, however, and says that Creationism is probably the best thing that has happened to Darwinism. Darwinism, she writes, is “the caricature of religion that has seemed to justify Darwinist contempt for the whole of religion”3.

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

In the United States, the theory of evolution and creationism has been strictly debated as far as which method if any should be taught in science classes across the globe. How was the earth created? Where did humans come from? These are questions that arise in most science classes. Many students require an explanation to why humans exist. There are those who would oppose evolution, and there are those who oppose creationism. Is there a significant difference between these methods? Several states have passed regulations that allow schools to teach both methods. The Louisiana Science Education Act, in particular, is an extremely controversial debate. The act allows teachers to teach adscititious materials in the classroom. Many opponents are looking to repeal this law. The Louisiana Science Education Act should not be repealed as it allows the student to engage in critical thinking skills, acknowledge both theories and ultimately decide which theory they believe in.

For as long as mankind has had the curiosity to gaze at the stars, we have been constantly questioning our origin and place in the universe. From simple, yet elegant solutions (like our world being on the back of a large tortoise) to the more complex pantheons of gods and heavens, humanity’s dedication to classifying and comprehending our universe has enabled us to weave rich and complex mythologies and beliefs. However, in America today there are two prominent paradigms that are shaping how we see the world—Christian creationism and scientific evolution. These two schools of thought, like many other conflicting models of the universe and its creation, have fueled passions and incited spirited rivalries among its most ardent followers and fanatics, but, again like many other opposing beliefs, at the same time it is easy to see how they can be reconciled both within and without oneself. However, many scientists and theologians believe that one of the two is blasphemous and the other is gospel (or textbook) truth. For example, in Scott D Sampson’s essay Evoliteracy, (2006) Sampson denounces Christianity and pushes for everyone to learn the theory of Evolution instead of creationism. While he is correct in wanting a more educated populace, Christianity is not an inherently wrong construct. Similarly, many of those pushing for intelligent design have similarly decried the evolutionary theory as

The feud between creationist and scientist about the origins of the universe dates back to the 20’s during the Scopes trial. Scientist are against creationism because there is no evidence to support the theory. Scientist support Charles Darwin’s theory Darwinism, the theory that organisms evolve from simple to complex through minor adaptations over time, because it has held up for more than a century. Rowe’s article expresses how he believes that creationist created intelligent design to take the place of creationism in public schools after the Supreme Court ruled that

Should religion, such as Christianity, be taught in public school? Droves of people, theists and atheists alike, ask and answer that question every day, but it is usually met with much scorn and heated arguments. A compromise can be reached, however. Even though Creationism is not scientifically supported, it does need to be taught in public schools, with one major difference; it should be taught only in history classes, owing to the fact that it has contributed to important events in history. Students need that perspective to understand certain historical events and why some people did what they did.

However, to truly grasp the essence of the controversy, one must understand the terminology of what school boards consensus as guiding definitions for science, the theory of evolution, and intelligent design. The common generalization shared by most Americans about science is that it’s a systematic and logical approach to discovering how things work in the natural world. This is correct, however, it is worth mentioning that this is based on fact – not on opinion or preference – and all research is held accountable to the scientific method; a rigorous process that begins with a hypothesis (an educated guess), followed by the formulation of an experiment to test the relationship of the variables in question, and ultimately an analysis, conclusion and critique of what the results yield. Darwin’s theory of evolution describes the biological processes of the

Despite great efforts to convince the opposing side, 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, 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 biased information,

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.

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.