Teaching Creationism In Schools Essay, Research Paper
The question as to whether or not creationism should be taught
in public schools is a very emotional and complex question. It can be
looked at from several different angles, its validity being one of
them. Despite the lack of evidence to support the fundamentalist idea
of creationism, that in itself is not enough to warrant its exclusion
from the curriculum of public schools in the United States. The
question is far more involved and complex.
One way to address the question is whether or not creationism,
in itself, is a valid idea to be taught in public schools. The answer
to this can be yes. Not only should a student in American public
schools learn and acquire knowledge in empirical sciences, and other
tangible facts both in history and other courses, but he should also
learn how to think and make decisions for himself. Unfortunately, as
it turns out, creationism is in direct conflict with the biological
theory of evolution. Many fundamentalist propose that creationism
should replace, or at least be offered as an alternative to Darwin’s
theory of evolution.
This is not the right approach. Creationism, as exemplified in
the book of Genesis, should not be taught in a science course. Science
runs on a certain set of rules and principles being: (1) it is guided
by natural law, (2) it has to be explanatory by reference to natural
law, (3) it?s conclusions lack finality and therefore may be altered
or changed, (4) it is also testable against the empirical world, and
finally (5) it is falsefiable. These characteristics define the laws,
boundaries, and guidelines that science follows. In a science course,
all knowledge conveyed is shown, or has been shown in the past, to
exemplify a strict adherence to these qualities. Creationism,
unfortunately in the eyes of Christian fundamentalist, does not
exemplify any adherence whatsoever to these rules and guidelines of
science. Therefore, it should not be included in the science
curriculum in public schools, even as an alternative to evolution.
Another idea is that which is held by those who subscribe to
the idea of scientific creationism. Scientific creationism, as it
relates to this topic, states that God was the creator, and that
evolution is simply a means, developed by Him, of conservation. Due to
this definition of how scientific creationism relates to evolution, it
may be easier to accept by scientific criteria, despite the fact
that the origins are scientifically debatable.
The problem in scientific creationism, and what I see as a
reason for its exclusion from the science classroom in public schools,
is the fact that it looks as if, from the outside, the whole theory
that it rest on is simply a contortion of the traditional version of
creation described in Genesis, custom-made to fit in with Darwin’s
theory of evolution. R. M. Hare would probably say that scientific
creationism is simply a modification of the story of creation in
Genesis, to fit into the ?blik? of the religious fundamentalist. A
blik, as Hare describes it, is a pre-set world view held by all
people, in which they draw from when forming certain opinions on any
particular subject. In the case of religious fundamentalist, who?s
faith in the validity of the Book of Genesis is an essential part of
their blik, it becomes necessary for them to contort their literal
view of the Book of Genesis into a form that is scientifically
acceptable. For this reason, creation science still does not have a
place in the science classroom of public schools.
Another problem with scientific creationism is that it would
exclude the idea of a random beginning. No theory could ever be tested
to find origins because it would conflict with scientific creationism.
Scientific creationism would be, in essence, a lesson on science
halting efforts to find creation, if it is possible at all. It may,
however, be acceptable as a theory and not a solid law.
Now that it is clear that creationism, as well as scientific
creationism, does not fit into the guidelines on which science
operates, therefore making them unsuitable for teaching in science
classrooms in public schools, in what part of the public school
curriculum in the United States should they be taught? The story
provided in the Book of Genesis could conceivably fit into the
literary genre of mythology. It could not be considered as nonfiction,
due to the many contradictions it makes within itself, as well as in
the world of empirical knowledge. These contradictions are numerous
and would create a paper within themselves, therefore it should be
addressed elsewhere. The controversy here, despite the factual and
logical inadequacies of the Book of Genesis, is whether or not
creationism should be taught in public schools. Therefore, the story
of creation in the Bible is best suited to be taught as literature and
not scientific theory. Due to these facts, it is conceivable that it
can be taught in English courses in public schools in America. If
creationism is to be taught, this would be the proper realm of the
curriculum in which to discuss it.
Now that it can be agreed that it is suitable for creationism
to be taught in the English and literature classes of public schools,
we are faced with another controversy. The teaching of the creation
story in literature courses, while valid in itself, still faces the
problem of whether or not the government would violate any
constitutional rights by including this in any curriculum in public
schools. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing any laws
that show favor to any particular religion which, in effect, is a
fairly total separation of church and state. If Congress were to pass
a law demanding that the Christian version of creationism be taught,
even in literature classes in public schools which are supported by
the taxes of all Americans, it would directly violate the
constitutional rights of Hindus, Moslems, Buddhist, and scores of
other religions that flourish across the country, many of which have
their own stories of creation. Therefore, even with a suitable area of
curriculum in which to teach creationism, it still is in violation of
the Constitution.
The exact manner in which it would be taught, if it were even
remotely possible to teach it in public schools, would also be
debatable. Should it be taught as fact, as religious fundamentalist
would prefer? Or should it be taught as mythology or some other
fictional story, as it well may be addressed in an English class? This
may offend many religious fundamentalist. If it were taught as fact,
it may offend students who subscribe to other religious beliefs, whose
parents also pay taxes.
Since creationism has to many conflicting aspects, as well as
factual and logical inadequacies, and not to mention the fact that it
does not follow the guidelines of science, it should not be taught in
science classes in public schools. Scientific creationism, while
subscribing more to the guidelines of science, can be simply seen as a
contortion of the Book of Genesis to make it compatible with these
logical scientific guidelines. Until it logically fits into the mold
of a theory, it can not be accepted as a plausible alternative. Even
if the Book of Genesis happened to find a place in the English
curriculum of public schools, or an any other curriculum for that
matter, it would still violate the First Amendment of the Constitution
of the United States. Even if all these hurdles were overcome, it
would still be hotly debated by different religions as to which story
of creation to teach. For all of these reasons, it is impossible for
any version of creationism to be taught in public schools in the
United States.
As one can see, the question of whether or not creationism
should be taught in public schools is not so much a question of should
it be taught, as it is more of a question of can it be taught. Can the
Book of Genesis, or even a version of it be taught legally as part of
a standardized curriculum? The answer is no. Can Native American
versions of creation be taught? The answer is no. Can any idea of
creation, subscribed to by any religion be taught legally? The answer
is no. Should it be taught? Yes. Where then should it be taught
legally, if not in the public school system? Probably, the best
environment would be the home. The best teacher would probably be the
parents.
Название реферата: Teaching Creationism In Schools Essay Research Paper
| Слов: | 1553 |
| Символов: | 10238 |
| Размер: | 20.00 Кб. |
Вам также могут понравиться эти работы: