Difficulties of Teaching Creationism in Public Schools - Research Paper Example

Abstract

Out of the desire to explain the origin of the universe, its purpose as well as its eventuality, there have been concerted efforts that have been emphasized in this endeavor. There have been several theories put across to shed light on the discourse. Among these theories are creationism and evolution. Creationism has been backed mostly by various religions as the beginning of the universe. Evolution on the other hand has been purported to explain in logical and scientific ways the origin of existence. Still, there have been those who claim that there exists an antagonism between creationism and evolution and those who claim that they are not diametrically opposed. As a result the discussion keeps on veering from one side to another where those who subscribe to each seem to assert their positions. Whichever, advantages or disadvantages there are, creationism has a greater appeal and it gives more freedom to choose compared to evolution.

Introduction

There have been unending investigations and discussions into the nature of existence; where it comes from, what it is for, and where it leads people. Since existence is sometimes a puzzle, many people have tried to explain it through various ways. Among these explanations on existence, evolution and creationism have dominated the talk, with some different people subscribing either way. Whether it produces antagonism or reconciliation, both evolution and creationism have been influential to the world. In some countries like the US, there has been an emphasis on elimination for over forty years. Some people have gone to court to seek a declaration of the teaching of creation science unconstitutional (Moore & Cotney, 2009).

This divergent attitude can seem to be a way of balancing between those who subscribe to religion and those who do not. However, buying any alternative from both theories, means distracting learners to think that either creationism is better than evolution and vice versa. As a result of the above dichotomy, there is always a need to consider the weight of each of the above theories if any or both was to be considered much advisable to be taught or not. This, however, cannot be done unless one was cognizant of the forthcomings of knowing each. This research paper will embark on showing how the creation theory, however much it may be discarded or doubted is more useful. It will actually be shown how creationism gives learners more freedom to choose.

Literature Review

According to Foster (2012) there has been an increased controversy and debate about the teaching of creationism in public schools and media has played an important role in determining the course of the public debate about the issue. Michael Reiss, the professor of education in an Educational Institution in London resigned from the Royal Society following his speech on creation that was widely misinterpreted. In his speech, Reiss categorically suggested that creationism could be debated in classroom, which was not received well by his peers. However, many scientists in their writings have encouraged the government to restrain the promotion of creationism in classroom and have pointed figures on religious leaders of portraying creationism as a scientific theory in public schools.

Despite criticism of creationism by scientists, it is still tacitly believed by the biggest percentage of students among them those who major in Biology. Young people continue to face social pressure to accept the perspective of creationism pronounced by their religious leaders and parents and also the media actively play the role of supporting an agenda on creationism (Dawkins, 2007). If creationism cannot be discussed in science lessons, it could be discussed somewhere else like at home, the playground, religious studies classroom, an indication that it is importance of study creationism in public schools.

Teaching creationism can be useful in helping students understand the scientific theory much better, both in the evolution perspective and beyond (Colin Foster, 2012). Although there could be a perception that students are not mature enough to make complex judgments about their life upon studying creationism, this is devoid of the fact that students inevitably do make judgments constantly, while in and out of school. As much as the scientific evidence for evolution theory is compelling just like any other widely-accepted scientific theories, so does creationism. Students should choose not to study creationism based on the fact that they view it as absurd, not by being discouraged by anti-creationists (Dawkins, 2010).

The Body paragraphs

Several studies have indicated that Biology teachers prefer teaching creationism compared to evolution in public schools. Although teachers are presumably motivated to learn about evolution, this does not prevent them from teaching creationism in classroom. Even when teachers were given a lesson on evolution in order to address documented misconception, their preference for teaching creationism was never changed. In the Rejecting Darwin: The Occurrence and Impact of Creationism in High School Biology Classrooms, Moore and Cotner, (2009) argue that most teachers have resorted to teaching creationism than evolution in biology and one of the reason being their religion background. Evidence to this follows a research conducted on 54 teachers who were requested to identify 28 subjects from the biology list of 39 subjects, which they thought was significant for inclusion in biology course as an introductory subject. Over one-fifth of teachers chose creationism as one of the significant 28 subjects (Moore and Cotner, 2009). Research shows that teachers prefer teaching creationism in public schools due their religious beliefs. Their personal views about creationism affects how they teach the subject as teachers with strong religious beliefs have the highest chances of rejecting evolution in favor of creationism. However, the Christian version of creationism is what is taught to students while other stories of other faiths are not considered. Moore and Cotner further assert that majority of biology teachers are young-Earth people who believe in creationism, a belief based on religious fundamentals that decline geology, paleontology, biology among other aspects of modern science, and instead focus on story that is aligned to the interpretation of religious materials. Creationists’ belief is that neither can legal decisions, professional standards of the state educational guidelines should not prevent them from teaching students about their beliefs.

Creationism is considered as a rejection of evolution in favor of some forms of creation; however, there exist varied and competing ideas under this concept. This implies that there is need to examine the concept of creationism itself considering what would be included in the subject in case it is taught in public schools. In the article “Should Creationism Be Taught in the Public Schools?” by Pennock (2002) creationism exists in different kinds which have to be considered when being taught in public schools. For instance, there are creationism views that relates to The Realian Movement, Mysterious Origin of Man and the youth-earth creationism (YEC) which is the most familiar form of creation science. Particularly in YEC, it was agreed that the following should be taught in classroom: the sudden creation of the world, life and energy from nothing; mutation insufficiency and natural selection in establishing living things from one organism; the creation of different types of plants and animals as a result of changes within fixed limits; separation of the ancestry of apes and humans; explaining the geology of the earth by catastrophism and the occurrence of flood across the world; and the beginning of the earth and the living things. According to Pennock (2002) the YECs have been actively involved in opposing inclusion of evolution subject in public schools and fighting for the inclusion of creationism in the syllabus despite pressure from non-Christian creationists and their views. Therefore, given that creationism should be taught in public schools, all the antievolutionary views should be incorporated in to the syllabus as theories to the scientific conclusions.

The academic course in which creationism should be included and the way in which it should be taught is a factor of consideration when introduced in public schools. This issue has to be taken care of due to the existence of various forms of creationism that accommodate views and beliefs of different culture and religious affiliations. An imaginary course would be that which combine different religions’ views of creation so that the course helps to enhance appreciation of cultural diversity of the Americans and the world at large. This is well articulated by Pennock (2002) in the article “Should Creationism Be Taught in the Public Schools?” The article explains that several people agitating the teaching of creationism in public schools would be ready to compromise the situation if a particular topic was introduced in the course. There is increased controversy as creationists are pressing for incorporation of their views in the science curriculum, and that it should replace or be considered equally with evolution. One case scenario is where in Harrah School, Oklahoma situated in the suburb of Oklahoma City, where a teacher denied students textbooks and instead gave them creationism materials, and taught them that believing in evolution means believing in no God. This portrays advocacy against teaching of evolution in public schools an encouraging teaching of creationism. In this essence, creationists want evaluation to be considered as a false model. Textbooks about creationism used by fundamentalist learning institutions teach that evolution is an evil view encouraged by atheist scientists interested in moving people away from God. Views on creationism could also be taught in public schools as demonstration on how science should not be undertaken. In this respect, particular creationist tenets could be analyzed followed by review of evidence, indicating how scientists realized that they were not right (Pennock, 2002). Thus, teaching creationism in public schools should be incorporated in the right courses and delivered to students in the right way that promotes the continuity of the subject compared to evolution which has since been considered a subject of study in classroom.

Students’ experiences in high school as far as biology courses are taught affect their understanding of creationism when they join college. This depends on whether students are taught creationism or evolution in biology course since they are trained to acknowledge their area of study as they proceed on with their studies up to higher levels. In the journal “The Influence of Religion and High School Biology Courses on students’ Knowledge of Evolution When They Enter College”, Moore et al (2009) explore how Biology courses in high school affect students’ knowledge about creationism and evolution. Moore, Sehoya and Bates further argue that surveys carried out in the US shows that the biggest percentage of biology teachers are creationists and are influential to students who take creationism subject in public schools. Students who learnt creationism in their biology courses in high school, but not evolution are most likely to accept creationism even in at college level unlike those whose high school courses in biology did not include creationism and the reverse is true. Therefore, to realize the impact of creationism in educational history of students, the subject has to be taught right from the time when students are in high schools.

Conclusion

In conclusion, research indicates that evolution is encouraged to be taught in public schools more than creationism. As much as scientists criticize the teaching of creationism in public schools, some teachers of biology emphasize the need for involvement of creation subject in the curriculum based on their religious believes. It has also not stopped them from introducing some teaching about creationism in the biology class. Generally, the discussion about creationism would still continue until it is recognized as a subject of study in the public schools, eliminating the notion that its existence and teaching students about it is intend to fight evolution. Therefore, when acknowledged in the curriculum, creationism should be allocated its own course and should constitute all the creationism views that indicate a representation of all the religious affiliated groups not only in the united state but across the globe. In respect to the arguments presented above, I strongly support the teaching of evolution in public schools.