D
Creationism In Public Schools
Ever since the dawn of man, human beings have tried to make sense of their existence. “What is the purpose of life,” and “How did life come to be,” are just a couple of questions concerning human existence. These questions have been debated by scholars, the clergy, and general laypeople for centuries. But it wasn’t until 1859 when Charles Darwin published his seminal work, On the Origin of Species, which posited that all life shares a common ancestor. Thanks to Darwin, humans had finally started to grasp how life came to be and how it flourished, namely, though the Theory of Evolution. Before Darwin, the only answer to how life came to be was creationism. But even now, after One-Hundred and Fifty-Years after Darwin’s radical new idea, there are still some today who oppose evolution and want an alternative, creationism, taught in public science classes.
Creationism is the idea that all living things, plants, animals, and bacteria, were created, by God just as they are now. Creationists got this idea by taking a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis in the Bible, which says that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. Also, creationists typically have a young earth view concerning the age of the earth. They usually believe the earth to be somewhere between fourteen-thousand and six-thousand years-old (however, these numbers for the age of the earth are nowhere to be found in the Bible). Creationists vehemently deny that all life shares a common ancestor; however they generally accept that micro-evolution happens (i.e. adaptations occur). Ken Ham, the founder of the young earth creationist organization Answers In Genesis (AIG) and the Creation Museum, claims that “Evolutionists” and Creationists have the same evidence, but they have different interpretations of that evidence. It is this claim of difference of interpretations that is giving the creationist movement credibility. But does this sound like science or is creationism merely religion and should it be taught in public school science classes?
“Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution,” was penned by the evolutionary biologist and Russian Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky, who criticized anti-evolution groups like Answers In Genesis (AIG) and the Institute for Creation Research (ICR); all of who want creationism taught in science classes. Dobzhansky was making the point that evolution occurs, and all of the evidence from all of the different scientific disciplines (e.g. geology, bio-chemistry, physics) adds to the theory of evolution. In other words, Evolution explains so much of what happens in nature that no other theory makes sense. The theory of evolution has multiple lines of evidence for it. It is time tested and makes positive predictions. Evolution is a working and verifiable science.
Even though evolution has more evidence for it than any other theory, besides Quantum Mechanics, there is still doubt from the general American public. AIG even states that according to surveys, most Americans are creationists; therefore, creationism should be taught in science classes along with the theory of evolution. This however, is a logic fallacy called the argument of popular sentiment (Argumentum ad populum). For instance, if ninety percent of the population believed UFOs exist it does make the preposition, UFOs exist, true. Popular opinion is not evidence. At one point, many people thought that the earth was the center of the universe (which it’s not even the center of the Milky Way) and it was flat. But both of those popular notions were shown to be false.
Shouldn’t the American educational system be teaching students all sides of the origins of life? Students have a right to know and decide for themselves. Knowledge should never be withheld from anyone. This is another argument espoused by AIG and ICR. At first the argument seems on the level and sincere. It appeals to Americans sense of fair play and self-determination. Knowledge should never be withheld from anyone, but sadly, the truth is not democratic. Parents could vote on the sex of their child, but it doesn’t change the child’s sex. But for the sake of argument imagine that creationism can be taught in public schools. Would this now mean that in order to be fair and not withhold knowledge from students, schools would have to teach alchemy in chemistry class? Would it mean that in history class, schools should teach Holocaust denialism? Both “theories” claim to have evidence for them.
To complicate the matter is the First Amendment, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Creationism is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Creationism is expressly religious in its intent and therefore cannot be taught in science class. This opinion has been expressed in several court cases, one of the most famous being Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), which established that creationism absolutely could not be taught. Though the Edwards case didn’t stop the creationist movement. After the Edwards ruling, a new branch of creationism evolved known as Intelligent Design (ID). However, in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case (2005) it was determined that ID had no secular purpose and was expressly religious in its intent, thus violating the First Amendment.
Because of the religious intent behind groups like AIG and ICR, the real underlying problem seems to be where evolution puts man. Evolution makes man an animal, which ironically enough, the creationist Carl Linnaeus was the first to classify man as a member of the great apes. According to the Bible, which AIG and ICR adhere to, man is special; evolution threatens this idea. Science has seen such battles before in cases of Copernicus and Galileo. They took away mans special status of being the center of the universe. But does knowing such facts make humanity less special? The late Stephen Jay Gould Ph.D, Harvard Zoologist, and science popularizer argued in his essay, “Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA)” that science and religion answers two separate questions. Religion answers questions of meaning while science answers questions dealing with the natural world. Science can inform religion, but it is not designed to answer the existential questions. Even Pope John Paul II wrote in his edict “Truth Cannot Contradict Truth” (1996) that evolution, in the neo-darwinian sense, is not just an hypothesis. Pope John Paul agreed with Gould’s NOMA. Creationism is more concerned with man’s place in the universe as opposed to how man came to be. There is no evidence for any of the tenets of creationism: a worldwide flood, a young earth, dinosaurs coexisting with humans, or a literal six day creation of the earth and cosmos. Therefore, creationism is solely a religious movement intended to spread religion and misinformed ideas about the origin of species, and thus doesn’t fit within a public school science class.
In a recent survey, half of all Americans responding when asked if the the earth orbits the sun or the sun the earth, got the question wrong. The fact that half of those respondents got that question wrong says a lot about the science education in the United States. This survey shows why it is important for the United States to take its science education seriously. Doing so requires that the most up-to-date factual content is taught to students. There is no time to be wasted with misinformation. There are no cures for HIV, cancer, and the hundreds of other diseases that kill men, women, and children each year. The theory of evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology and to dismiss it simply because it endangers one’s position on man’s purpose in the cosmos could be a grave mistake.
