Controversy over Evolution and Creationism - Essay Example

Controversy over Evolution and Creationism in the Public School Kitzmiller et al. Vs Dover School District Introduction: Kitzmiller Vs Dover School District case was argued in one of the United States District Courts of Pennsylvania; the twenty one days trial lasted for six weeks from September, 26, 2005 to November 4, 2005 (UScourts, 2005). The judgment was given on December 20, 2005 more than a month later. The case was in the favor of the plaintiff, but there was no further appeal as the board members, who were in the defense lost in the subsequent school board elections. It is an interesting case involving school board and parents, experts who testified and publishers who showed special interest in the case. It aroused interest due to the controversy it created around religion, science and education. The Case Summary: Kitzmiller et al. Vs Dover School District is the first direct case against a public school district. The case was based on a statement read to the sophomore (9th grade) students in the Dover School District in their biology class. The statement, according to the plaintiffs, endorsed “Intelligence Design”, a non-scientific creationist theory based on religious beliefs, as an alternative theory to Darwins’ Theory of Evolution, and thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Unites States Constitution as part of the Bill of Rights (UScourts, 2005). The Establishment Clause recommended a separationist and a non-preferentialist approach to religion and prohibits the preference or support of a religious idea without a secular purpose. So, the plaintiffs said that the statement in its being ‘creationist’ actually implies support of a religious idea and therefore violates the clause. According to Lemon, 403 U.S at 612-13, if any teaching or statement’s “principal or primary effect advances or inhibits religion, it violates the Establishment Clause (UScourts, 2005). However, the defense claimed that the statement does not violate the Establishment Clause as it does not mention or support any religious belief and that intelligence design is purely empirical; moreover, it does not teach intelligence design but only introduces that there is such a theory. The ruling was in favor of the plaintiff and the Judge John E. Jones III ruled out teaching intelligent design as constitutional. The Arguments: The plaintiff, who were nine parents from the Dover School District represented by American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) and Pepper Hamilton LLP filed a case against the Dover School District over a statement that was to be read out aloud in the 9th grade biology class in the school district. UScourts (2005) says that the primary inquiry is Whether the District has shown favoritism toward religion generally or any set of religious beliefs in particular: The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the ‘First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.’ When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates the central Establishment Clause value of official religious neutrality, there being no neutrality when the government’s ostensible object is to take sides. McCreary, 125 S. Ct. at 2733 (quoting Epperson, 393 U.S. at 104). Arguments of the Plaintiff: Based on the trail documents in The TalkOrigins Archive (2006a) some of the major arguments of the plaintiff and their witnesses are listed as follows: 1. The school board members wished to balance the teaching of evolution with creationism 2. The board members who voted for the statement had clear religious intentions a. Forrest, an expert witness for plaintiff noted ID as another name for creationism movement and that it is an attempt to “present a religious proposition as a scientific viewpoint” (The TalkOrigins Archive, 2006b) 3. The board members did not believe or were against evolution and wanted to teach creation and evolution fifty-fifty 4. School board policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment 5. Intelligent design is a form of creationism 6. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory and should not have been mentioned in the first place in the board’s statement a. Kenneth R. Miller, a biology professor testified that “"It is not a testable hypothesis. It misrepresents established scientific knowledge” (The TalkOrigins Archive, 2006b) 7. The statement “"falsely undermines the scientific status of evolutionary theory and gives students a false understanding of what theory actually means” (The TalkOrigins Archive, 2006b) The arguments of the plaintiff were concerned about the religious tinge of the instruction and the statement used in the biology class; they also were based on scientific research on the nature of scientific theories, and Intelligence Design (ID). They considered ID similar to astrology and logic but not science, that is empirical. The primary motive was to prove that the statement and the ensuing instruction are not secular and are against the Establishment Clause; conflict between evolution and creation was not primary, though it gained significance as creation was connected with religion and evolution with science. They had strong statements about creationism as religious view point, and ID as creationism and non-scientific. The Arguments of the Defense: The arguments of the defense were mostly responses to the arguments raised by the plaintiff. 1. Claim that the statement does not violate Establishment Clause as it shows while students are taught evolutionary theory, they are merely made aware of the existence of another theory, the intelligent design theory, and that while students are assigned a basal text that presents evolutionary theory, theyre merely made aware of the existence of a reference text in the library that deals with intelligent design theory, if they care to check it out. And they are told that they will be tested on evolutionary theory, as required by Pennsylvania state standards (The TalkOrigins Archive, 2006b) 2. ID is not taught, but only introduced as a concept 3. The district superintendent said that separation of church and state is absurd according to “The Myth of Separation” by David Barton (The TalkOrigins Archive, 2006b) 4. ID is a scientific theory that can be traced back to luminaries like Newton, Lynnaeus and Mendel The arguments of the defense, the Dover District School board et al. show the emphasis they placed on developing critical thinking and evaluation skills in students, which is actually not science but logic as said by the plaintiff. They don’t deny the fact that ID is creationism, but they state that they do not propose to teach it. They base their arguments more on ethics than on scientific facts. Conclusion: The case itself was centered around the argument about the inclusion of religious beliefs in scientific secular education; the plaintiff arguments were intent on proving ID as non-scientific, religious, creationist, in order to give evidence that the statement is against the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The arguments of the defense tended to prove that ID is scientific and the statement is non-religious and that no non-scientific theory or religious belief is taught as part of the curriculum. Here, both the sides had to explore theories and their nature; however, the defense arguments grounded in religion and ethics to argue that ID or creationism has also to be introduced alongside evolution, which created a controversy. The plaintiff arguments did not focus much on the nature of evolution theory but more on creationism and disproving it to be non-scientific. References UScourts. (2005). In the United States district court for the middle district of Pennsylvania. Retrieved December 8, 2009, from http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf The TalkOrigins Archive (2006a). Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Dover, Pennsylvania Intelligent Design Case. Retrieved Dec 8, 2009, from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html The TalkOrigins Archive (2006b). Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 1 (September 26), AM session, part 1. Retrieved Dec 8, 2009, from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day1am.html#day1am12 Read More