Should Evolution Be Taught In Public Schools - Essay Example

Should Evolution Be Taught In Public Schools? In the mid-Nineteenth Century the theory of evolution was opposed by religious individuals and organizations when initially introduced by Charles Darwin. This same religiously fanaticism continues to reject the thought of humans evolving from apes. However, over the past 150 years public opinion has unquestionably evolved and most religious people today accept evolution as true. Those who continue to be willfully ignorant of the subject think there is a debate to be had concerning the age old ‘how did we get here’ question. They maintain that the Biblical version of creation not the scientific theory of evolution is correct. This emotion-filled debate normally centers on which account the public schools will teach. Eventually everyone will accept that evolution is fact and creation a myth even educationally deprived children in the State of Kansas which has chosen to teach both. Unfortunately it will be many generations in coming because society evolves very gradually. Teaching the creation story in public schools only serves to fulfill the role of defending particular religious beliefs. If kids are to be taught, it is exclusively the responsibility of the church and parents because teaching the religious stories including creation in public schools violates constitutional principle. This subject evokes strong passions from those motivated by their religious beliefs and by those who would defend the Constitution. The First Amendment begins with “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” (“The Constitution”) The concept of creation is indisputably religious doctrine. The government, consequently, cannot endorse it in classrooms and call it science without infringing on both the First Amendment and common sense. The Supreme Court has said that teachers cannot tell their students that life were created by God and must impart only scientific accounts for the history of life. “Creationism cannot be presented as scientific fact. In addition, it is also unconstitutional to compel teachers to teach creationism and schools may not refuse to teach evolution in an effort to avoid offending religious individuals” (Dorman, 2005). In addition, the idea of placing disclaimers in school textbooks such as “the teaching of evolution is not intended to influence or dissuade the Biblical version of Creation or any other concept” (Freiler, 2000) has been legally recognized to be unconstitutional. A teacher does have the constructional authority to teach evolution. Religious conceptions of creation may be included into the school curriculums as example comparing what some religious groups believe to be true. The foundations of intellectual integrity and of scientific cannot consent to the teaching of religious stories of creation as an alternative approach to evolution. This is because science entails the constant effort to disprove theories while religion merely accepts what has been written by undetermined authors as true. “Religion is based on faith that is never questioned while science is based on knowledge that is constantly questioned” (“Epperson v. Arkansas”, 1968). Creationism, the intelligent design theory and creation science are similar terms that religious groups use to explain how the universe and everything in it was made and they want included into public education. Those that believe in creationism think that God first created the universe and then man according to the account of creation offered by the Bible. Creation Science attempts to disprove the theory of evolution and provides unscientific ‘proof’ that all matter known in the universe was created by an omnipotent being as is recounted by the Bible. Intelligent Design theorists argue that because modern science has no positive proof of evolution, this fact undoubtedly demonstrates that divine intervention is the only rational explanation. Intelligent design proponents believe in divine creation as well but do not usually make Bible references, instead they attempt to verify God’s role in the creation of man and the universe. Creationists claim that evolution has not been proven. However, it has been proven by the same method that scientists verify any other strongly and generally accepted scientific theory. Creationists do not require the same high level of verification from themselves that they do from evolutionary theorists. Scientists are expected to answer all questions whether reasonable or not, concerning the creation of life down to the smallest detail to offset the concrete ‘proof’ the Bible provides. Evolution, due to the deep religious implications, is held to a higher standard of verification. For example, no one disputes that gravity is true though it is a theory that is no more positively verified than is the theory of evolution. “Many religious people of the 15th century believed the earth was flat while scientists and intellectuals such as Aristotle 2000 years earlier knew that it wasn’t” (Jones, 2005). Scientists perform experiments designed to challenge theories so as to establish reliable empirical evidence. The enormous evidence collected that supports the gradual development of the universe including the earth and everything on it is more than sufficient to presume that evolution is the only reasonable explanation for the origin of man suitable for teaching in public schools. The intent of science class is to teach what man understands of his surroundings, not what religion ordain. “Proponents of the intelligent design theory emphasize that their condemnation of evolution is based on science, not religion, but cannot challenge these beliefs by subjecting them to the typical scientific experimentation procedures and debate. Intelligent design is unable to be examined using the methods of science, and therefore can never be a scientific conclusion” (WGBH Educational Foundation, 2000). Only scientific methods generate science, beliefs do not, is a matter that of fact and not subject to majority vote or political maneuverings. “Truth in science is not determined democratically,” Michael Shermer wrote in Scientific American Magazine. “It does not matter what percentage of the public believes a theory. It must stand or fall on the evidence and there are few theories in science that are more robust than the theory of evolution” (Shermer, 2002). The Supreme Court agreed with this fundamental truth in its ruling in the case Santa Fe v. Doe. “Fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections” (“Oyez”, 2000). All citizens are guaranteed by the Constitution the right to be free from a government that supports the teaching of religion via the public school system. It is not an issue subject to be decided by the majority at a given time. The precise method by which evolution happened and is continually occurring is debated among scientists. Some scientists propose that species evolve due to mutations. A specialized new trait accidently occurs through mutation so occasionally an animal is born with new beneficial survival skills such as thicker fur, larger teeth, higher developed senses, a longer neck, etc. This animal flourishes and produces young that carry the same inherited trait consequently live more successfully, longer and produce a greater number of young than others of its kind. Ultimately the newer type ‘wins out’ over the initial species and a new improved species has been born. Darwin famously suggested that animals will adapt to a new environment given enough time, millions of years. He named this phenomenon natural selection. During his celebrated journey in the mid-1800’s to the Galapagos Islands, Darwin witnessed substantial evidence for his theory concerning the origin of all species. The 13 islands of the Galapagos are fairly close in proximity but are greatly different geographically, some had tropical-like conditions, others more arid, some rocky, some sandy for example. Darwin observed how several types of animals had adapted to the varied conditions present on the different islands and, over time, ultimately evolved into a different though still similar species. Darwin’s conclusions were based solely on reason and evidence and now have been subject to scientific scrutiny for over 150 years in a highly technological time in history. These details give Darwin’s theory credibility contrasting the mythical ‘evidence’ offered by creationists. (Robinson, 2003) Science is a process that observes the forces within the natural world then analyzes and processes information based on evidence not conjecture or belief. Science acquires an initial theory then challenges those assumptions, a process that continues as new evidence is discovered. Religion sets the bar much lower for the understanding of nature. Words from an ancient text of unknown authors, a preacher, parents or other ideologues is enough for many to have certainty on a subject such as creation is credible and evolution is fantasy. Religion is concerned only with faith and belief as a means to acquire knowledge, not with making an attempt to contradict its conclusions as science does but by blindly accepting words of other believers as true. Most religious people will boldly declare that their specific religious beliefs are right and that science and any other religion are flawed which instigates conflict between different religions. There are no such conflicts involving scientific research. “Scientists welcome debate on newly developing hypotheses and generally accept substantiated theories such as evolution.” (Robinson, 2003) Even those who think of themselves very religious usually understand that there are specific scientific explanations why people become sick and acknowledge that God is not punishing a person by causes them to contract a disease. They acknowledge the Earth is round and does indeed revolve around the Sun unlike what the Bible claims. In the era of Christopher Columbus, educated people knew for certain that the Earth was round but could not dare admit it due to the fear of being charged with heresy, an offense punishable by torture and death in medieval Europe. Following the 1492 voyage, the Church could not suppress any longer what had before been scientifically proven evidence but now was an undeniable reality. Science is supported by credible evidence therefore will eventually triumph over religion. “There are still many points of major conflict between science and religion. In each case, only one will eventually win public support. The historical record indicates that religion wins very few of these disputes” (Robinson, 2003). Teaching the Bible or any religious works should be left to religious leaders and families alone and hopefully for the children these teachings coincide with an understanding of scientific knowledge. The government, through the public school system, can neither oppose nor promote particular religious doctrines or beliefs according to the Constitution as was made clear by the Supreme Court. However, religious zealots indifferent to the founding principles of America or its laws continue to advocate for their agenda to be forcefully injected into society such as the Biblical version of creation and prayer be promoted in public schools. For public policy to be determined by religious belief is absurd according to the majority. No rational person can deny that this practice is unlawful, un-patriotic and un-American and against the fundamental principles set forth by the Founders of the country. References Black, Justice. (1962). “Engel et al v. Vitale et al.” This Nation.com. 370 U.S. 421 Accessed July 25, 2011 from Dorman, Clark. (November 6, 2005). “Edwards v. Aguillard: US Supreme Court Decision.” The Talk Origins Archive. Accessed July 25, 2011 from < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html> “Epperson v. Arkansas.” (November 12, 1968). Supreme Court of the United States. University of Missouri – Kansas City Law School. Accessed July 25, 2011 from “Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education.” (January 24, 2000). Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. FindLaw: Thomson Publishing. Accessed July 25, 2011 from < http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/5th/9830132cv1.html> Jones, Arthur. (March 11, 2005). “Workshop: Myth and Fraud in Science Teaching from Copernicus to Darwin in the Textbooks and Popular Literature of Science.” Dordt College. Accessed July 25, 2011 from < http://center.dordt.edu/bjh_conference/2005/myth%20and%20fraud.htm> “Oyez: Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe.” (2000). The Oyez Project. Ed. Jerry Goldman. 530 U.S. 290 Accessed July 25, 2011 from . Robinson, B.A. (October 10, 2003). “The Conflict between Science and Religion” Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance Accessed July 25, 2011 from < http://www.religioustolerance.org/scirel_ov.htm> Shermer, Michael. (February 2002). “Skeptic: The Gradual Illumination of the Mind.” Scientific American. “The Constitution of the United States” (Ratified December 15, 1791). Amendment 1, Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Accessed July 25, 2011 from < http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1> WGBH Educational Foundation. (2001). “Frequently Asked Questions About Evolution.” Public Broadcasting Systems. Accessed July 25, 2011 from < http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat09.html> Read More