In the mid-nineteenth century, Charles Darwin articulated his theory of evolution, which argues that human beings evolved, over the course of millennia, from more primitive animals. This theory conflicts with the account of man’s creation in Genesis, wherein Adam is created by God as the first fully formed human, having no predecessors. Adam’s creation is the act of an “intelligent designer,” rather than the result of some natural evolutionary process. Although many believers think that evolution is compatible with the Bible, many others feel that the account in Genesis must be taken literally and that teaching evolution is an affront to their religious beliefs. Many states and school districts have tried to ban the teaching of evolution (most famously, the state of Tennessee, which prosecuted John Scopes in 1925 for violating its ban), but the Supreme Court ruled in 1968 that the purpose of such bans is religious and cannot be permitted in public schools. In 1987 the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional Louisiana’s Creationism Act, which forbade the teaching of evolution unless the theory of creation science was also taught. Nonetheless, believers in “intelligent design”—or “creationism”—have continued to insist that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the classroom.
PROS
The Constitution forbids the establishment of any one religion, but it also guarantees freedom of religion, which means that the government cannot suppress religion. By teaching that evolution is true, schools are violating the religious beliefs of students.
Evolution has not been proved; it is a theory used to explain observable facts. But those facts can be explained just as well, and in some cases, even better, by intelligent design theory. Moreover, evolutionists do not acknowl- edge that the evidence essential for proving their ideas— e.g., fossil remains of transitional, evolving beings— simply does not exist. Creationism is a theory that is at least as worthy as evolution and should be taught along with it.
By teaching intelligent design theory, a school is not doing anything to establish any particular religion. Intel- ligent design is accepted by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Native Americans, Hindus, and many others. Therefore, it should not be forbidden by the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
Creationism is not, as the Supreme Court has ruled, a religious belief. It is a scientific theory, and has been articulated by many philosophers and scientists, for example, Aristotle, in a completely secular context.
CONS
In practice, there is no question that the supporters of creationism depend upon one religious tradition—the Judeo-Christian—and upon the account of creation in its sacred texts. Teaching creationism establishes, in effect, only that specific religious tradition, to the detri- ment of other religions and of nonbelievers. Teaching creationism in a publicly funded school is clearly a viola- tion of the Constitution.
Evolution is a theory that is based on verifiable scientific facts, but creationism is based on the revelations con- tained in scripture. Creationism cannot be taught as sci- ence because it is not consistent with standard scientific procedure.
All religions offer a creation story, varying from religion to religion and from culture to culture. A public school might examine all of these beliefs in the context of a history of ideas course, rather than in a science course. In practice, however, creationists are not interested in exploring different beliefs; they are, rather, committed to putting one religious belief on equal footing with pre- vailing scientific thinking in the science classroom. Creationism is not a scientific theory and is not accepted by the scientific community. Schools have a mandate to teach what is currently accepted by the country’s scien- tists—that is, they must teach evolution, not material from outside the discipline of biology.
History has shown that scientific theories are often dis- proved over time; evolution, thus, should not be consid- ered to be an unassailable truth. In the spirit of scientific inquiry and intellectual skepticism, students should be exposed to competing theories.
Science is morally and religiously neutral. It does not aim to uphold religious beliefs; it does not aim to debunk religious beliefs. Evolution is not taught as an attack on religion; it is taught as the best scientific explanation of available facts. Students are free to pursue their own pri- vate religious beliefs.
PROS CONS
Sample Motions:
This House favors a curriculum free of creationism teachings in public schools. This House believes that evolution ought to be taught instead of creationism. This House thinks that teaching creationism in public schools is justified.
Web Links:
• Evolution and Creationism in Public Schools. <http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/indexes/bldec_CreationismIndex.htm> Index of court cases on the issue.
• Evolution vs. Creationism. <http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/ORIGINS/origins.html> Site contains information on both sides of the debate including links to articles, newsgroups, books, and frequently asked questions.
• Science and Creationism. <http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/preface.html> Detailed essay from the National Academy of Sciences summarizes the key aspects of evolution, describes the positions taken by advocates of creation science, and analyzes their claims.
Further Reading:
Binder, Amy J. Contentious Curricula: Afrocentrism and Creationism in American Public Schools. Princeton University Press, 2002. Gilkey, Langdon. Creationism on Trial: Evolution and God at Little Rock. University Press of Virginia, 1998.
Scott, Eugene C., and Glenn Branch. Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools. Beacon, 2006.
|The Debatabase Book