Case 2: Creationism In this case, a biology teacher is told that she must teach creationism rather than evolution. The teacher, Sandra Maxwell, is upset and doesn’t want to teach Creationism to her students. The insert in the new textbooks says that evolution is “controversial” and is accepted by “some scientists.” I think that this is a case of nonmaleficence. No harm would come from teaching students a different theory about how the earth and creatures came to be. She is being bias against Creation. Sandra Maxwell has several options. First, she could just accept the material in the new textbook and teach Creationism to her students. Second, she could talk to the school board and have them choose different textbooks so she can teach evolution. The third option, and probably the best, is to teach some of each. That way, students could all believe what they want to, and not feel forced one way or another. If I was in the legislature, I would vote to have Creationism in the curriculum. Decades ago, school and religion were not separated. Our grandparents had religious schooling, and they turned out just fine. It’s also not fair to only teach one possibility. To avoid problems with the school boards, the textbook companies could include both curriculums. They could have alternate activities so teachers can choose what to use depending on their classes. For other topics, teachers teach about past theories, wrong and right. Why should this be any different? No matter what, not everyone will be pleased with every situation. In 1987, a court case called Edwards vs Aguillard banned Creationism from being taught in public schools. The reasoning was that “Creation Science is a religion,” not an actual science. They probably mad... ... middle of paper ... ... Mike for not asking to be taken out. The coach could say that Mike should know his own limits and not push it. He could blame the opposite team member for tackling him, even though that’s a big part of the game. They could also say that it’s not their fault that Mike got injured in the first place. A contract to pay professional athletes even if they are injured has both good and bad sides. If the player gets hurt, it is most likely not his fault. It would probably be from being tackled or tripped. On the other side, a player could fake an injury to laze around and get paid for it. I feel that he should still get paid, but not as much as the other players until he is back on the field. Works Cited Hicken, Melanie. "Average cost to raise a kid." CNN Money. Cable News Network, 14 Aug 2013. Web. 22 Nov 2013. .
Robert Root-Bernstein and Donald L. McEachron, “Teaching Theories: The Evolution-Creation Controversy,” The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 44, No. 7 (Oct…1982). This article, written by Robert Root-Bernstein and Donald L. McEachron sheds light on the controversy of evolution vs creationism in schools and the validity of each being called a scientific theory. The work was created to answer the questions, “Which of these theories is truly scientific and which is a religious belief? Which should be taught in schools?” The article concluded in favor of evolution as a valid scientific theory that should be taught rather than creationism, but also mentioned the worth of understanding the latter.
The concept of creationism has a strong religious history and very deep religious overtones, and the constitutionality of teaching the subject in a public school immediately was questioned. Called to preside over the resulting legal case was U.S. District Judge William Overton. Thu...
Evolution and Creationism are both fact and theory but the question is which one should be taught in schools? Only a few school distracts have approved the teaching of evolution because it has more senitific evidence than creationism to prove that it is true. According to a new Gallup poll, just 39% of Americans believe in evolution. The Gallup polls also show that those Americans with higher education believe in the theory of evolution as opposed to those with only high school diplomas. The polls found that 74% Americans with post-graduate degrees believe in evolution theory compared to 21% of Americans with only high school diplomas. The Gallup polls suggest that the belief in the theory of evolution is associated with education. Evolution should be taught in schools because it has more scientific evidence to support it than creationism does. Also, public schools should not teach things that have to do with God, such as creationism, because the Constitution requires the separation of church and state. Finally, if we do not allow schools to teach evolution it would be a form censo...
Teaching of evolution has several issues. One of the main issue is that it is unfair to some students with a background of Christianity. Christians believe in Creationism, meaning God created the whole world or if not, most of the world. Darwin's theory of Evolution is complete contradictory of this. In the Bible, it is stated that God made humans in His image while Darwin's theory says that Humans evolved from monkeys. It is basically proving that God, does not exist, violating the first amendment, Freedom of Belief. The first amendment states "..respecting the establishment of religion..." When Christian students listen and are forced to learn the theory of Evolution, it is restricting them to worship without obstacles and is therefore, disrespecting the establishment of religion by defying the existence of God. "If Genesis were interpreted as symbolic, as a myth, fable or fantasy, then the entire role of Jesus would have to be reinterpreted."(http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_school.htm)
This is not the right approach. Creationism, as exemplified in the book of Genesis, should not be taught in a science course. Science runs on a certain set of rules and principles being: (1) it is guided by natural law, (2) it has to be explanatory by reference to natural law, (3) its conclusions lack finality and therefore may be altered or changed, (4) it is also testable against the empirical world, and finally (5) it is falsifiable. These characteristics define the laws, boundaries, and guidelines that science follows. In a science course, all knowledge conveyed is shown, or has been shown in the past, to exemplify a strict adherence to these qualities. Creationism, unfortunately in the eyes of Christian fundamentalist, does not exemplify any adherence whatsoever to these rules and guidelines of science. Therefore, it should not be included in the science curriculum in public schools, even as an alternative to evolution.
The twentieth century has witnessed the escalation of the creation - evolution debate through famous court cases and Supreme Court decisions on the teaching of evolution in public schools, culminating most recently in a Kansas Board of Education decision. As this highly controversial issue of the teaching of evolution in American classrooms rages on, it may be difficult for some individuals of Christian faith to form an alternative belief other than the extremes of creationism and evolutionism. Before discussing this issue any further, when I refer to strict beliefs in creationism or evolution as extreme views I am not necessarily implying that they are wrong, but are simply two views on completely opposite sides of the creation - evolution debate spectrum. For some creationists, accepting God as Creator as told in the Book of Genesis means the simultaneous rejection of evolutionary theory. For some evolution believers, accepting evolution ultimately results in the replacement of God as Creator with the process of evolution.
The only theory of creation that teachers are allowed to teach in public schools is the theory of evolution. No other idea is considered and this is not acceptable. Many people think it is closed minded to only teach one religion, but that is a two way street. It is also closed minded to only teach evolution. Someone may argue the reason why they only teach evolution is because if they teach any religion based theory then it forces religion on people. Teaching evolution forces a different belief on religious people. We need to find a way to teach multiple theories.
The fact that Abiogenesis is a separate field of study than Evolution should incline creationists to be more amenable to having evolution taught in schools. In fact, this was one of the main arguments of the plaintiffs in the aforementioned Kansas Board of Education hearings used in order to justify the teaching of evolution in the science curriculum. Mr. Irigonegaray stated in his closing statement, “Draft 2 accurately represents science as neutral in respect to the nature of spiritual reality.” (7) This means that science is not on a mission...
Since the Scopes Trials came to a close, the Supreme Court enforced the teaching no of evolution in all public schools across the US in 1987. The interesting part was that most people believe that the Supreme Court had banned the teachings of creationism, but the decision stated that creation is no more than how life began (“Teaching Creation,” 2010). The case that made the decision, Edwards vs. Aguillard, actually allow public schools to teach either creation or evolution, as long as the teacher does not mention God in the picture. This fact can depict one’s belief in God and how humans came to the form that humanity is in today. The belief of creationism is correct, rather than evolution, because the belief proves the existence of God.
Since the time that teaching evolution in public schools was banned as heresy and taboo for contradicting the Bible, most public school systems today take an opposite approach in which creationism is seldom ta...
Evolution and Intelligent Design being taught in public schools is a growing controversy. Both supporters and augmenters have been clashing over different perspectives on wither intelligent design should replace evolution as part of the scientific curriculum. The controversy has lead to multiple court cases and religious dispute. The main issue when it comes to teaching this idea of science in our schools is the idea of conforming to an idea without solid evidence. Students whom are required to learn intelligent design rather than Darwin’s idea of evolution will be directly confronted on their moral and religious beliefs. In addition, students will develop a less understanding of science.
In the uncertainty that the modern world is, there is one law that stays petrified in stone no matter what happens: “Things change with age.” No matter if it is in history, science, or even Pokémon, things change as time passes by and this process is called evolution. The theory formulated by Charles Darwin is the belief that all organisms have come from earliest creatures because of external factors (“NSTA…”). School boards everywhere have accepted the theory of Evolution as fact making it essential to be in the curriculums of science classrooms. However, over the years, controversy has arisen as the fact that is evolution is still only a theory with flaws and setbacks, efficiently making other theories (i.e. intelligent design) a viable alternate in the classroom. The law, on the other hand, had a different idea about these other theories with numerous bans them from schools, claiming them to be against the second amendment. Despite the bitter debate of rather or not it is valid and right for teaching (primarily alone) the theory of evolution lies as being the most reliable and accurate way to teach how the modern world came to be.
... in species. Evolution, a fully objective topic, is indeed backed by large quantities of convincing research, and children should be free to have their minds opened to this important law of nature. Darwin actually documented his own doubts in evolution as it was first proposed, but as more data was gathered he began to firmly believe his theory was correct. There is more than enough research to convince people of this scientific truth; all that is needed is more open-mindedness among students and teachers alike. The objective facts supporting Darwinism show that the topic is something that students should have a right to learn. As our knowledge of science evolves, it is clear that evolution will one day be fully accepted. At this point, however, people should work to expedite this acceptance for the advancement of science and the liberation of the minds of students.
Personally, I do not believe in evolution theory, but I teach it without reference creationism. I am of the opinion that creationism should be taught in religious classes since most scientific views on issues is most often than not contradictory to religious teachings. Educators must understand the legal issues that surround teaching creationism in science class, this understanding can defuse tensions and legal wrangling that come with teaching creationism at the expense of evolution. For teachers that favors creationism (which I subscribe to), it is a must to separate religious belief from their duty as an
In 1895 Charles Darwin published a book describing his theory of evolution, and his theory of the natural selection process. This theory caused much uproar in the religious community because Darwin’s theory went against the story of creation portrayed in the Holy Bible. His theory claimed that all life currently in place had evolved and adapted from a single organism in the beginning. Over time and by process of natural selection only the dominant species were left over while the other, less dominant species, went extinct. His theory, backed by scientific analysis, had dismissed the idea of a single deity creating all life on Earth. It is not like Darwin had a personal agenda against religion or anything, but he did create what would become the main evidence used by atheists to disprove the Bible. Now his theory is still theory, and is yet to be proven as a fact, but is still believed by much of the scientific society as a fact. The struggle between the religious and the atheistic will rage for many years, but where the battle will cause the most damage is in the American school system. The thesis of this paper is, teachers must be required to teach evolution; which is already in place in the American school system, but teachers cannot be allowed to teach evolution as a fact, or evidence disproving the existence of a god. On top of all of that, they must as well allow the expression of opposing viewpoints.