Creationism in Public Schools
Teaching Creationism in Schools
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.
One way to address the question is whether or not creationism, in itself, is a valid idea to be taught in public schools. The answer to this can be yes. Not only should a student in American public schools learn and acquire knowledge in empirical sciences, and other tangible facts both in history and other courses, but he should also learn how to think and make decisions for himself. Unfortunately, as it turns out, creationism is in direct conflict with the biological theory of evolution. Many fundamentalist propose that creationism should replace, or at least be offered as an alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution.
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.
Another idea is that which is held by those who subscribe to the idea of scientific creationism. Scientific creationism, as it relates to this topic, states that God was the creator, and that evolution is simply a means, developed by Him, of conservation. Due to this definition ...
... middle of paper ...
...plausible alternative. Even if the Book of Genesis happened to find a place in the English curriculum of public schools, or an any other curriculum for that matter, it would still violate the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Even if all these hurdles were overcome, it would still be hotly debated by different religions as to which story of creation to teach. For all of these reasons, it is impossible for any version of creationism to be taught in public schools in the United States.
As one can see, the question of whether or not creationism should be taught in public schools is not so much a question of should it be taught, as it is more of a question of can it be taught. Can the Book of Genesis, or even a version of it be taught legally as part of a standardized curriculum? The answer is no. Can Native American versions of creation be taught? The answer is no. Can any idea of creation, subscribed to by any religion be taught legally? The answer is no. Should it be taught? Yes. Where then should it be taught legally, if not in the public school system? Probably, the best environment would be the home. The best teacher would probably be the parent.
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...
With countless theories disproving the theory of Evolution still in progress of research, the theory should not yet be taught in schools. It is only a theory and the theory has multiple flaws. There are many aspects that contradict with proven and confirmed scientific laws of nature. Science is said to be logical all the way. Contradictory should not occur. A theory that teaches something which may be a complete false statement should not be taught in schools.
In BBC’s episodes of Sherlock, “The Blind Banker”, “The Great Game”, and “A Scandal in Belgravia”, the writers changed some of the source materials of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s “The Dancing Men”, “The Bruce-Partington Plans”, and “A Scandal in Bohemia”, in order to modernize some of the central themes of the stories. The writers of Sherlock kept the material that would continue to resonate with the modern viewers of the show as passionately as Doyle intended to have his novels resonate with his Victorian audience. The changes that were made bring out other, more pertinent themes to modern society, while still keeping most of Doyle’s original messages intact. Naturally, there are some differences that will be present in these works due to the decision of the writers of the television series to bring Sherlock into the modern era in terms of setting. These differences and the changes made to the existing source material are not meant to take away from Doyle’s work, but add to it and encourage the audience to connect to the characters and adventures of the works.
There are many controversies in courtrooms about whether or not should intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution in public schools, which has been going on for a great amount of years. Intelligent design is the idea of nature's changes cannot be a random process, but a type of guidance must have lead to why nature is the way it is in today’s era. In most cases, that specific guidance is God. God has created the world for a purpose. Creationism is the same idea as intelligent design, believing that nature was created by a divine being, God. Evolution is the idea of natural selection. This idea means that specific characteristics of genes, has been chosen to last longer throughout generations having the ability to breed on those characteristics. Having those particular types of genes, allows the specific living organism to survive longer and be well adapted to its’ environment. Intelligent design and/or creationism are different from evolution, leading to why these two ideas should not be taught alongside with one another. The ideas should not be taught alongside with each other because it violates the first amendment, Establishment Clause of the Constitution, it can intervene with students' prior science knowledge of using corroboration, and religious related topics should not be introduced in science classes, especially if it is not scientifically proven.
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.
One of the biggest controversies in schools today is the debate between Evolutionism and Creationism and which should be taught in the United State's science classes. Many Christians believe that Creationism should be given equal time in schools, but others feel that teaching Creationism is teaching religion. Those fighting for equal time say that Creationism can be taught without all the religious jargon. Also many argue that Evolutionism is just as much a belief system as Creationism (Creation vs. Evolution: Battle in the Classroom,1982). Should one of these theories get more time in public schools than the other? Children today should be presented with as much information as possible and then allowed to make their own decisions.
In 2004, Sharpes and Peramas report that “nearly two-thirds of all Americans surveyed favored teaching creationism together with evolution in schools,” according to a poll organized by CBS Broadcasting (qtd. in Costley and Killins). Thus, it seems as if the public has bought into the fair play argument proposed by creationists. After all, why not have a place to teach equally credible theories of the origin of life in schools? (Eldredge 634). Chet Raymo, a noted science professor of physics and astronomy at Stonehill College, rejects this notion, stating, “one might as well give equal billing to those who believe the Earth is flat” since creationism stands on little factual ground (156). At any rate, the U.S. Supreme Court illustrates that teaching creationism puts pressure on minorities to conform to the obviously favored religion when the power of the government backs up the theory (qtd. in Anti-Defamation League ...
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.
Creationism being taught in public schools is not right because there are many beliefs about how the earth was created. Many science teachers have different beliefs on this particular subject. Some believe it should not be taught in public schools but on one’s own time at home, church, or another place. Other science teachers think students should be taught all the believable theories about evolution and creationism. Some science teachers have gotten in trouble with the law by not obeying other laws regarding evolution and creationism. This has lead to a lot of controversy in the science world. Even though many students have different views on creationism, not all of them are very accurate in the ways they portray the teachings of evolution and creation. This is why others should stop fighting about creationism and start obeying and respecting laws regarding this topic.
Mysteries have always held great fascination for the human mind, not least because of the aura that surrounds them and the realm of the Unknown into which they delve. Coupled with the human propensity of being particularly curious about aspects which elude the average mind, the layer of intrigue that glosses over such puzzles makes for a heady combination of the literary and the popular. In the canon of detective fiction worldwide, no detective has tickled the curious reader’s imagination and held it in thrall as much as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes. The 221-B, Baker Street, London ‘amateur’ detective combines a rare blend of intellectual prowess and sharp wit to crack a series of baffling riddles.
Perhaps one of the most interesting features of our fathomless universe are the planets that are classified as gas giants. Huge, turbulent, and distant, the gas giants are some of the most enigmatic features in our Solar System. I have a personal interest to the gas giants and celestial bodies in general. When I was a child, I was fascinated by our Solar System. I read innumerable books about space, and my interests of outer space had been piqued further by other forms of media. Although I held this interest of space, growing up left me with little time to learn about space, and I lost interest for a while. Taking Earth Science in Milpitas High re-invigorated my interests in the celestial bodies. Using this class, I’m now able to focus on learning more about our colossal universe, in particular, the outer planets.
South Africa really began to suffer when apartheid was written into the law. Apartheid was first introduced in the 1948 election that the Afrikaner National Party won. The plan was to take the already existing segregation and expand it (Wright, 60). Apartheid was a system that segregated South Africa’s population racially and considered non-whites inferior (“History of South Africa in the apartheid era”). Apartheid was designed to make it legal for Europeans to dominate economics and politics (“History of South Africa in the apartheid era”).