What educators teach in the classroom can influence the religious or political beliefs of young students. However, often at times, the curriculum may go against such beliefs of the student’s household, which may then become a concern for parents. As a result, there has been a push from various groups, such as evangelicals[ref]Richard Garner, “State Schools ‘an Open Door for Evangelical Groups to Push Creationism,’ Warns Study,” The Independent, October 11, 2013 accessed June 9, 2015, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/state-schools-an-open-door-for-evangelical-groups-to-push-creationism-warns-study-8872452.html.[/ref] and Texas officials, [ref]Allen Clifto, “Texas Officials Renewing Their Push to Teach Creationism in Public Schools,” Forward Progressives, September 15, 2013, accessed June 10, 2015, http://www.forwardprogressives.com/texas-officials-renewing-their-push-to-teach-creationism-in-public-schools[/ref] across the nation to include creationism – the belief that an intelligent being created everything in the universe – in the science classrooms as an alternative theory to evolution. Supporters of intelligent design, the conviction that a creator made the world and everything in it, will argue that alternative theories to the origin of life deserve equal representation in the classroom.
Despite the fact that ninety-seven percent of scientists accept that there exists some evolutionary process, the concept that all humans evolved from earlier life forms, only sixty-one percent of the general public accept it.[ref]“Views on Evolution among the Public and Scientists,” NCSE, accessed June 7, 2015.[/ref] This could be why there are currently thirteen states, as well as our capital – Washington DC,[ref]Chris Kirk, “Map: Publicly Funded Schools That Are Allowed to Teach Creationism,” Slate, http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/creationism_in_public_schools_mapped_where_tax_money_supports_alternatives.html[/ref] that have schools receiving public funding that teach intelligent design in the classroom. The most notable of these states is Louisiana, which passed the Louisiana Science Education Act, allowing classrooms throughout the entire state to teach creationism in their science classes. [ref]Nick Wang, “Louisiana Science Education Act Repeal Fails, Keeping Door Open For Teaching Of Creationism,” Huffington Post, May 2, 2013, accessed June 7, 2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/02/louisiana-science-education-act-repeal_n_3200819.html [/ref] The Vendetta is that including creationism in the classroom crosses the barrier between church and state, as well as forces classrooms to teach a belief that has no basis of scientific evidence.
Even though creationists today are fighting for the inclusion of intelligent design in classrooms, that wasn’t always the case. In 1968 Appellant Epperson, an Arkansas public school teacher, challenged a statute established in the 1920s that not only forbade evolution from being taught in the classroom, abut also reprimanded any teacher who attempted to do so.[ref]“Epperson v. Arkansas,” accessed June 7, 2015, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_7.[/ref] The Supreme Court voted in favor of Epperson, with the basis for their decision being that the statute violated the First Amendment. The justification for the decision was that the arguments for the statute were solely religious base. However, the existence of evolution in the classroom may be in danger again as politicians, like Republican Governor and Presidential Candidate Rick Perry and Senator Dan Patrick, [7] are supporting for the inclusion of creationism in the classroom. Even during his time in office, George Bush expressed his opinion that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution.[ref] “Bush: Schools Should Teach Intelligent Design,” NBC News, August 1, 2005, accessed June 7, 2015, http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8792302/ns/politics/t/bush-schools-should-teach-intelligent-design/#.VXRj2c9Vikr.[/ref]
Those in opposition to this idea argue that using the term “intelligent design” is just a strategic way to slip religion into the classroom. Opponents, like Bill Nye, have even boldly claimed that creationism is creating a generation of “young people who can’t think.”[ref]Antonia Blumberg, “Bill Nye: Creationism Is ‘Raising A Generation Of Young People Who Can’t Think,’” Huffington Post, December 13, 2014, accessed June 7, 2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/13/bill-nye-children-creationism_n_6317148.html[/ref] However, there is no evidence that believing in creation actually impedes any one’s ability to become science literate. In fact, there are many renowned scientists who believed in a God or creation, such as Michael Faraday, Isaac Newton, and Erwin Shrodinger.[ref] “25 Famous Scientists Who Believed in God,” Famous Scientists, accessed June 7, 2015.[/ref]
A major issue in the evolution debate is that people are misrepresenting the word “theory.” Many creationists have argued that since evolution is just a theory, it should not be given much merit within the science classroom.[ref]Jack Wellman, “5 Crucial Reasons to Teach Creationism in Public Schools,” Christian Crier, December 26, 2013, accessed June 7, 2015.[/ref] However, this argument in itself is a fallacy. To the average person, theory might mean hypothesis or hunch, while in science, a theory is a way to interpret evidence. [ref]Alina Bradford, “What Is a Scientific Theory?” LiveScience, March 17, 2015, accessed June 7, 2015.[/ref] Science is full of theories that are unopposed in the classroom, such as the theory of gravity. Creationists also argue that evolution is unobservable, and therefore, not a valid scientific theory. While this is a compelling argument, opponents of evolution must also understand that concepts, like how long planetary bodies like Pluto or Neptune takes to revolve around the sun, is also an unobservable theory. Just because a theory is unobservable, does not invalidate it in any way.
All parents should have some level of control over what they want their kids to learn. However, it becomes concerning when teaching creationism can go as far as including texts that claim evolution is a “wicked and vain philosophy.” [ref] Jeffrey Kluger, “Creationism in Schools—On the Taxpayer’s Dime,” Time, March 24, 2014.[/ref] The problem with trying to include creationism in the classrooms is that its deliberate purpose seems to be to demonizing evolution rather than encourage discussion.
All alternatives to evolution, that are unscientific, should be excluded from the public science classrooms. This includes any alternatives that have a basis in religious beliefs. In order to protect the first amendment, the U.S. government should create a federal ban of creationism, and its supplemental textbooks, in public schools. The goal of keeping science classrooms strictly scientific is to promote education, and not indoctrination in government funded schools. This isn’t to say that it should be required for people to believe in evolution, but rather people should understand the accepted theories within the scientific community.
Take Action:
This Petition was created to promote proper science in American science classrooms. The petition only needs twenty two more signatures to reach its goal.
Repeal Creationism, a website created by Zack Kopplin – a sophomore in Rice University, works to end the Louisiana Science Education Act and its detrimental effects on the state. Explore the website to see how you can support Zack.
