Creationism - Research Paper Example

? Schools Should Teach Creationism Schools Should Teach Creationism Over quite some time now, there has been a heated debate on whether public schools should teach creationism. This controversy, which has existed between scholars, practitioners, and policymakers seem to draw the educational sector backwards. Further, this debate has led to different opinions that to some extend seem confusing. The other available option is to teach evolution theory as the explanation of origins in science classes. For some time in the past, evolution did not appear in the curriculum after its scrapping by court orders after a debate on its eligibility (Ryan and Cooper, 2012). Evolution theory has had its criticism over time. In 1920’s, evolution garnered immense public support but still it stayed out of the school curriculum. A supporter of the creation science bought up a new debate in the 1980s that schools should teach creationism as a substitute of evolution. This debate is the source of all public debates in recent times concerning the same issue. Despite the arguments, public schools should teach creationism alongside the evolution theory. The students deserve to know the two theories of origin and make a choice, which suits them in accordance to the available data. According to Supreme Court ruling, educators in schools should teach alternative theories to the evolution theory. Creation science, in essence is an alternative to the evolution theory. Although the creation science has several forms, the intelligent design theory described by some creationists, qualifies the standards of a theory worth teaching. This is the most current theory of the modern creationists and lays its basis on scientific evidence. Contrary to the arguments of many people, this theory does not emphasize its religious basis. Therefore, teaching it in class will not be placing a bias on religions. Education in the current times should be as inclusive as possible. In most of the public classes, there are students from all lifestyles. These children deserve an open-minded educator who presents both sides of the story. The students should get insights to both the evolution and creation science theories and the data available concerning the two. The educator should remain impartial and should serve the purpose of informing the students. Their students should choose freely which of the two theories they could adopt. Critics argue that the creation science theory has no scientific evidence. Due to its lack of this vital scientific evidence, they argue that it does not qualify presentation in a science class. The Young Earth theory may lack scientific evidence but the intelligent design theory deserves a fairer consideration. In both cases however, both creation theories are alternatives to the Darwinian Theory. As the supreme law asserts, they deserve to appear in the curriculum. The failure to teach creationism in a science class as an alternative to the evolution will deny students the opportunity to reason. The creation science may lack the scientific evidence as all critics claim (Flank, 2007). Its representation in class will not try to prove itself right as a scientific theory. Teaching of creationism should make students realize the difference between a scientific theory and creation theory. Scientists may never accept to take the creation science theory as a hypothesis worth their debate but that should not discredit it from appearing in the curriculum (Flank, 2007). After all, it serves to explain the origin of the earth and life. Teaching creationism in class does not burden a student to adopt its views. On the contrary, the student will understand the difference between the two theories. Critics argue that the creation science theory deserves teaching only in a religious class. However, they should not forget its relevance in science class. The fact that it explains the origin of life makes it a subject worth tackling alongside other theories. As the educator tackles evolution, he or she should touch on creationism as well. Presented in a religious class, it is for religious emphasis. However, in a science class, it makes the explanation of the origin of species and all forms of life more comprehensive for the student. Antievolution activists who argue in support of total replacement of the evolution system in the curriculum with creationism have led to more crises. It is only fair if both theories receive attention. Presenting students with the creationism theory alone will create a religious bias. Parents have shown their support for the teaching of creationism in schools. At least the public wants their children to have an understanding of the creationism theory. Since parents have, a right over what their children learn in school, this should be another reason why educators should teach creationism alongside the evolution theory. Parents arguing for exclusive eradication of the evolution theory from the curriculum should realize that it is fair to expose their children on the available information about the two theories and give them the freedom to choose which of the two they believe (Alexander and Alexander, 2005). Logically, parents should not expect children to refute a theory they do not know. Since most of the high school students where this form of censorship exists, are self-searching individuals with the quest to discover themselves, they need exposure to both theories. The teaching of creationism faces a lot of rejection because there are claims that it is unconstitutional. Several court rulings have emphasized this view and policy makers argue that the constitution is clear that there should be separation of state and the church. However, introduction of creationism in schools using an approach that agrees with the constitution is possible. This approach will present creationism as a theory and not as absolute truth. In this case, it will be constitutional to teach creationism. This will be a fair way to teach it because it will not compel people of the varying religious groups to accept it. Acceptance of the theory will be purely because of personal choice. Despite all these, it is worth noting that the syllabus deoes not depend ion political standing (Scott, 2005). In a fair debate, both parties should present evidence for refuting a claim. In real essence, most people calling for the government to exclude creationism from the curriculum do not have evidence for their argument. In fairness, nobody should disregard a theory simply because it contradicts what he or she believes. In any case, both theories raise a controversy against each other and remain as only theories. Discrediting creationism will not be a fair course. Critics who credit the evolution theory too much and argue that it is more scientific should realize that it is equally a theory just as creationism is. There is no substantial evidence that this theory is true. Some famous scientists express their concerns about its validity too. Presented with a case of two theories, it is not fair to disregard one and defend the other as being more factual. None of us was there at the beginning and both theories are representations of what people believe happened at the start earth. Both cases should receive a benefit of doubt because they are theories. There are arguments that by allocating equal time to both evolution and creationism will be a cold way of discrediting evolution or criticizing its validity. People should realize that teaching it alongside its alternative theories is a fair way. Students who want to support it will do so from reason. Science is supposed to question theories and establish truths in them. Presentation of the two controversial theories will give students an opportunity to debate over the issues arising from their understanding of the theories (Scott, 2005). Some of the cases presented in court by policy makers indicate that the republic should foster academic freedom. The subject on academic freedom has different aspects. It does not absolutely allow an educator to teach what he or she wants. On the contrary, it allows the educator to present all theories in class. The educator only acts to inform the students on all the data available on different subjects. To foster this freedom, the law should allow educators to present both theories to class (Alexander and Alexander, 2005). The educators should remain impartial as they tackle the issue. Academic freedom should let the students have a vast and comprehensive exposure to knowledge. The subject of debate should shift from judging which of the two theories is true. Instead of debating over the relevance of covering both of the theories in the syllabus, critics shift their argument to judging which of them the absolute truth is. As things are now, it is quite difficult to call any of them the absolute truth. Excluding the creationism theory from the syllabus will be giving evolution more credit and reducing the worth of creation science. For now, none has proved itself as the absolute truth beyond the doubt of scientists. The arguments that teaching creationism in public schools will be urging students to adopt the beliefs of a certain religion lack justification. High school students are critical in nature and to sway them into adopting new religious beliefs is not easy. Provided the teacher remains impartial and handles matters carefully and just as they are, children from other religions are safe. It is healthy to open up the young minds to understand and respect the religious view of others. In my opinion, public schools should teach creationism. In the religious classes, it will serve to enlighten students on its religious basis. In a science class, it should be alongside other theories, which serve as alternatives to the evolution theory. In the science context, creationism will serve as an explanation to the origin of species offering students a diverse view of all available theories. I highly believe that covering evolution alone is not enough because both of these are theories. Science students should get an introduction to the issues that have brought controversies over a long time (Scott, 2005). A science class is the only venue where they can learn both theories in the right context. Understanding the basics of both will arouse their criticality. Therefore, students can make a decision independently. The issue on reading a disclaimer before tackling evolution lacks logic. The teacher has a role of informing and enlightening students. It is only fair the educator does his or her work. This role should include presenting all available data to the students. Students are send to school to learn then become open minded. They are the scientists and creationists of the future generation and deserve to know all the data surrounding the two theories. Society needs an education curriculum that is comprehensive and that introduces students to being analytical and critical. Creationism may have its many varying forms, which represent the beliefs of different religious groups. Despite its various forms, it seeks to explain the origin of species. It may create a controversy because it believes in the fixity of species. If presented carefully, it will serve its purpose as an alternative to evolution. In its own unique way, it offers an explanation to the origin of species (Haynes, 2004). Students need not buy its view but rather appreciate it as an alternative to other theories. It is not clear whether the debate on whether public schools should teach creationism or not will end soon (Robinson, 2011). This is because the focus tends to lie on judging which of the theories is more valid and which the absolute truth is. In such a case, solving the crisis may take quite some time. The public polls indicate that some parents want creationism taught in school. In an era when academic freedom is the target in many states, there are varying opinions on the limits of the freedom. Evolution and creationism remain theories that raise a controversy. Probably one of them may be the absolute truth but it is not in our hands to decide now. However, society should be fair and the constitution should allow the teaching of both theories in a science class for the students to take sides independently. Creationism should not receive the censorship from public school curriculum. I strongly believe that public schools should teach creationism alongside other theories in a science class. References Alexander, K. and Alexander, M. (2005). American public school law. New Jersey: Cengage Learning. Flank, L. (2007). Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America. Florida: Red and Black Publishers. Haynes, C. (2004). Should Intelligent Design Be Taught in School? Retrieved on feb. 14, 2012 from http://aclu.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=696 Robinson, B. (2011). Teaching the origin of species in schools. Retrieved on Feb. 14, 2012 from http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_school.htm Ryan, K. and Cooper, M. (2012). Those Who Can, Teach. New Jersey: Cengage Learning. Scott, E. (2005). Evolution vs. Creationism: an introduction. California: University of Carolina Press. Read More