Zealous Toward Social Harmony

The holy debate that never ceases: The reasons for separating scientific reason from creationism in Public Schools today

May 4, 2011 at 9:58 pm Leave a comment

Educators and parents in the United States have questioned the co-existence of creationism and scientific evolution in science classrooms for the past several decades.  Recent events show that it doesn’t appear that this debate will end any time soon.  A lobbyist group called the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools has been able to get an elective course on the history of the Bible in over 2,000 high schools throughout 38 states in the U.S.  The organization, which is being newly supported by actor Chuck Norris and his wife, is currently attempting to have its curriculum passed in the state of Arkansas.  In my argument, I will discuss how Pennsylvania, which has passed the Bible elective course, has dealt with religion in science classrooms over the past decades.  I will suggest that it is necessary to understand some of the current and historical developments surrounding the creationism and Naturalism theories.  Further I will elaborate that Biblical literature should be taught in humanities and English classrooms and for science classrooms to only include Naturalism theories.

Many Americans hold a steadfast desire for creationism to be taught in public schools and refuse to accept scientific evolution theories.  This is because a majority of America remains to be made up of Christian-based faiths (Moore, et al. 2003).  However, two separate court cases in the Abington (1963)[1] and Dover Area (2005)[2] public school districts, both located in Pennsylvania, have served as precedents against teaching creationism and Intelligent Design in science classrooms.  These cases have created, in retrospect, some of the key arguments in the church and state debates across the nation and they prove why creationism doesn’t belong in science classrooms.

In public schools, there are a number of reasons why science curricula tends to be a heated debate, but I think a main influence is the citizens’ public opinion.  In 1959, Pennsylvania passed a law[3] that stated each school day had to begin with the reading of at least ten Bible verses.  It took about three years for an Abington High School student’s parents to take the issue to Supreme Court where the lecturing of the Bible was ruled unconstitutional.  In 2005, another precedent would be made in the state at Dover Area School District where Intelligent Design had made its way into the science curriculum.  Intellectual Design is a more recent view of science instruction in the classroom.  This perspective acknowledges the long history of earth and has been used by those who believe that Naturalism does not fully explain the scientific evolution theory (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).  Theorists of Intellectual Design take a different approach and believe in a more purposeful or at least purpose creating force beyond means of nature.  However, this school of thought has also been met with precedents that restrict schools from incorporating it in curricula.  When parents found out that Intelligent Design was being discussed in the classrooms they sued the district.  The plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case won and the ruling deemed that Intelligent Design is rooted in creationism beliefs and therefore violates the U.S. Constitution.  These cases have thus continued to be used to defend the scientific curricula used across the country, which excludes creationism science.

Creationism, in general, is the belief held by some Christians, Jews, and Muslims, that God created human beings in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.  Even several decades ago, in 1982, 44 percent of Americans who answered a Gallup poll said they believed in creationism.  The popular belief can be rooted back to the book of Genesis of the Hebrew Bible.   According to the Bible, God created the world in two ways: “Six days of creation and the Sabbath” and the parable of Adam and Eve (Gen. 1-2 New Revised Standard Version).  The very first sentence of the book states, “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters” (Gen. 1:1-2).  The Bible also states that man had no role in the creation process, “So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all the work that he had done in creation.  These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created” (Gen. 2:3-4).  Thus a person, who believes in creationism, believes in reading the Bible in a literal sense and that it represents an accurate historical account. 

Moreover, Americans find relevance in creationism and many still argue for it to be taught in the science classrooms.  In a Gallup poll taken in 2007, a majority (66 percent) of Americans who responded said that they believed creationism.  Former Republican vice president candidate in the 2008 election, Sarah Palin, who claims to be an evangelical Protestant, has stated she is open to teaching creationism in the public schools:  “A healthy debate is so important and it’s valuable in our schools.  I am a proponent of teaching both [creationism and evolution]…don’t be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides” (Anchorage Daily News/Oct. 27, 2006).  Proponents of a diverse science curriculum, like Palin, argue that science should include alternative evolution explanations. 

But, as people lobby for creationist thought to be taught in science classrooms, I find this to contrast the founding principles of America’s doctrine.  The modern Deist movement, which influenced the framework of the U.S. Constitution, was inspired by philosopher Thomas Paine who wrote The Age of Reason, in 1795.  Deism, which is rooted in philosophers such as Paine, is a rational perspective on religion that excludes supernatural revelations and instead focuses on a scientific school of thought (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).  Thus, under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, it states that there cannot be any law made respecting an establishment of religion, which would violate the Bill of Rights.  Paine argues, “It is a fraud of the Christian system to call the sciences ‘human inventions;’ it is only the application of them that is human” (54).  He believed that theology was the root of science because humans made observations of nature, which Paine states was made originally by God (47).  Paine did not think like the majority of society and instead believed that religiosity and scientific reason could be explained in rational terms. 

Paine believed that there was evidence of God in the Bible’s text, but religions have misinterpreted the scripture; “But such is the strange construction of the Christian system of faith, that every evidence the heavens affords to man, either directly contradicts it or renders it absurd” (77).  The fact that many people have interpreted the text much too literally is in my opinion, a contradiction.  I believe that if the Bible is taught directly in the classroom, it should be in humanities or English classes and not science classrooms.  Further, regarding the “strange construction of the Christian system of faith,” I think that creationism should remain hypothetical, as science has proved otherwise.  The construction of creationism should be taught in a religion or humanities setting to preserve its historic significance, while leaving the remaining scientific rationale for a science curriculum. 

While science classrooms should focus fully on rational science, there can be a place in several other subject areas in public schools that could use the Bible and creationism for intellectual stimulation.  Naturalism or Darwinism remains one of the main opponents of the creationism school of thought and for decades it has been taught in public schools.  But, with academic freedoms in other classrooms, students can be more inclined to learn at higher levels of creativity (Berry 1980).  For instance, in English classrooms students may often choose, from a confined list or subject area, what book they would like to read for an assignment.  The option to choose a topic to study or certain book to read promotes students’ creativity and allows them to personally engage in the texts they read (Berry 1980).  Academic freedoms should also include the right for students to learn creationism and religion in humanities or English classrooms.  In the book, American Public School Law, the authors argue that “One’s education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization.  It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities” (Alexander and Alexander 2005).  I would add that the Bible, which is the most widely-read text in the world, could offer students insight and understanding of past historians, scientists, and theologians’ work that used the same text as reference. 

This academic freedom is not just limited to English classrooms, as history, foreign language, and other social science classrooms can be more diverse than science classrooms.  Institutions have even adopted an “Academic Freedom” policy, which often states that their academic purpose is to transmit knowledge and promote a better society of learners.  According to Temple University’s Academic Rights and Responsibilities policy, created in 2006, administrators state that “free inquiry and free expression are indispensable to the attainment of these goals…students should be encouraged to develop the capacity for critical judgment and to engage in a sustained and independent search for truth” (Policy Number 03.70.02).  While some universities and colleges tend to allow more learning freedoms, public high schools are often much more academically reserved, especially in science classrooms.

Overall, I argue that the rational thought of Darwinism or Naturalism science belongs in the science classroom, while religion and creationism still have their place.  Educators should find a common ground in the future that the literary and historical value of the Bible and creationism can improve public schools’ English or humanities curricula.  However, I agree with Paine in that contradictions exist in religion and thus it should be kept out of science curricula.  Further, educators should consider the historical developments in the state of Pennsylvania surrounding the creationism and Naturalism theories.  The former consideration should allow educators to be able to separate religion and creationism from science classrooms.

 

Works Cited

Alexander, Kern, and M. David. Alexander. American Public School Law. Belmont, CA: Thomson/West, 2005. Print.

Berry, R.L. “Academic Freedom and Peer Reviews of Research Proposals and Papers.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 62.4 (1980): 639-46. JSTOR: Oxford University Press. Web. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1239761>.

Board of Trustees. Policy # 03.70.02. (Aug 1, 2006) (effective). Student and Faculty Academic Rights and Responsibilities. Print.

Cornell Law. “School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp.” Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School, 27 Feb. 1963. Web. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0374_0203_ZO.html>.

Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989. Print.

Gallup. “Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design.” Gallup.Com. Web. 15 Apr. 2011. <http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx>.

“Home Page.” National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, 2011. Web. <http://www.bibleinschools.net/>.

Kizzia, Tom. “‘Creation Science’ Enters the Race: Gov. Sarah Palin Background | Alaska News at Adn.com.” The Anchorage Daily News. 27 Oct. 2006. Web. <http://www.adn.com/2006/10/27/217111/creation-science-enters-the-race.html>.

Moore, Randy, Murray Jensen, and Jay Hatch. “Twenty Questions: What Have the Courts Said about the Teaching of Evolution and Creationism in Public Schools?” American Institute of Biological Sciences 53.8 (2003): 766-71. JSTOR: University of California Press. Web.

<http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1641/0006-3568%282003%29053%5B0766%3ATQWHTC%5D2.0.CO%3B2

Paine, Thomas. The Age of Reason. Nu Vision Publications, LLC, 2007. Print.

Ruse, Michael, “Creationism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/creationism/>.

Legislation:

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al, U.S.; 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005).

School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S.; 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, (1963).

PA. Pub.Law 1928 (Supp. 1960) Dec. 17, 1959

Entry filed under: Civil Rights, Diversity, Education. Tags: academic freedom, creationism, darwinism, evolution, first amendment, freedom of religion, Hebrew Bible, Holy Bible, intelligent design, naturalism, sarah palin.