Context
Creationism and intelligent design should be given the same status as evolution in the classroom according to 29% of teachers in a poll by Teachers’ TV (2008). While half of those polled considered otherwise, some 89% thought it should be discussed if raised in a science lesson. Such views from the metaphorical ‘chalk face’ no doubt reflect the reality of the classroom but resources geared to facilitate this are sparse indeed.
Nor are such views confined to teachers. In a survey of the UK population some 27% considered that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution in science lessons. (Lawes 2009). A recent survey among churchgoers revealed that 61% thought that creationism should be taught as part of science in schools (Village 2011). An even greater percentage believed that it should also feature in Religious Education teaching.
Professor Michael Reiss (2010), a distinguished educationist, estimates that 10 – 15% of people in the UK accept the record of the Bible or Quran on creation and therefore a similar proportion of state school pupils are likely to believe this. In schools with a strong Christian or Muslim ethos the percentage holding such a belief will be greater; in the Christian Schools Trust member schools, for example, it is as high as three-quarters of the teenage pupils (Baker 2009, Table 7.1).
For a number of years there has been a vocal lobby from humanist and other groups opposed to the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in schools (for an excellent summary see Baker 2009, Section 4.6). As a result government guidance was given to teachers in state schools (DCSF, 2007). This supported teaching different beliefs about origins in Religious Education but indicat...
... middle of paper ...
... 28% of science teachers believed it essential to cover religious beliefs about the origin of life in the classroom (Times Educational Supplement, 19 September 2008).
Village, Andrew et al (2011) , ‘The Bible, Creation and You’ survey 2011 : Report on the initial findings, York St John University, available at : http://w3.yorksj.ac.uk/pdf/The%20Bible%20Creation%20and%20You%20survey%202011.pdf (accessed 8 August 2011).
Captions
The home page of The World Around Us virtual museum. Access is gained to any of the galleries through the toolbar at the top of the page or via the image logo of the relevant gallery at the bottom.
A small section of the display on dating in the Paradigm Crisis gallery of The World Around Us virtual museum. Each of the exhibits on the website can be enlarged to provide greater detail.
Prepared for Origins 55 (2011)
Robert Root-Bernstein and Donald L. McEachron, “Teaching Theories: The Evolution-Creation Controversy,” The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 44, No. 7 (Oct…1982). This article, written by Robert Root-Bernstein and Donald L. McEachron sheds light on the controversy of evolution vs creationism in schools and the validity of each being called a scientific theory. The work was created to answer the questions, “Which of these theories is truly scientific and which is a religious belief? Which should be taught in schools?” The article concluded in favor of evolution as a valid scientific theory that should be taught rather than creationism, but also mentioned the worth of understanding the latter.
The Dover Area School District of Dover, Pennsylvania is seeking approval from the General Assembly of Pennsylvania House to include the theory of intelligent design in the instruction of biology. Intelligent design, also known as I.D., is a theory that seeks to refute the widely-accepted and scientifically-supported evolution theory. It proposes that the complexity of living things and all of their functioning parts hints at the role of an unspecified source of intelligence in their creation (Orr). For all intents and purposes, the evidence cited by I.D. supporters consists only of the holes or missing links in evolutionary theory; it is a widely-debate proposal, not because ?of the significant weight of its evidence,? but because ?of the implications of its evidence? (IDnet).
The concept of creationism has a strong religious history and very deep religious overtones, and the constitutionality of teaching the subject in a public school immediately was questioned. Called to preside over the resulting legal case was U.S. District Judge William Overton. Thu...
Jones states that intelligent design is a religious view, based of creationism and not a scientific theory. He adds that the Dover school board’s claim to be examining an alternate form of science is simply, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom. After the judge decision the school board, consisting of newly-elected, pro- science members. The federal courts have ruled that creationism, creation science, and intelligent design are not science, but instead endorse a specific religious belief. Therefore, these topics are not appropriate content for a science classroom. Neither Intelligent design nor any other form of creationism has met any of the standards of science and cannot be tested by the scientific method. On the other hand, evolution, like all other sciences, is founded on a growing body of observable and reproducible evidence in the natural
75% of homeschooled kids in the United States are Evangelical Christians. In St. Robert, Missouri at Levi’s home, he states while doing homework with his mom that creationism is the only answer to everything. Levi’s mom...
Le Beau, Bryan F. "Science and Religion: A Historical Perspective on the Conflict over Teaching Evolution in the Schools." EbscoHost. MARHO, n.d. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. .
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.
The twentieth century has witnessed the escalation of the creation - evolution debate through famous court cases and Supreme Court decisions on the teaching of evolution in public schools, culminating most recently in a Kansas Board of Education decision. As this highly controversial issue of the teaching of evolution in American classrooms rages on, it may be difficult for some individuals of Christian faith to form an alternative belief other than the extremes of creationism and evolutionism. Before discussing this issue any further, when I refer to strict beliefs in creationism or evolution as extreme views I am not necessarily implying that they are wrong, but are simply two views on completely opposite sides of the creation - evolution debate spectrum. For some creationists, accepting God as Creator as told in the Book of Genesis means the simultaneous rejection of evolutionary theory. For some evolution believers, accepting evolution ultimately results in the replacement of God as Creator with the process of evolution.
The fact that Abiogenesis is a separate field of study than Evolution should incline creationists to be more amenable to having evolution taught in schools. In fact, this was one of the main arguments of the plaintiffs in the aforementioned Kansas Board of Education hearings used in order to justify the teaching of evolution in the science curriculum. Mr. Irigonegaray stated in his closing statement, “Draft 2 accurately represents science as neutral in respect to the nature of spiritual reality.” (7) This means that science is not on a mission...
...hat science courses are evolving, who knows maybe in the next few generations intelligent design will be the mandatory science course for all students, while evolution is only taught in history class.
In 1859, Charles Darwin published his groundbreaking Origin of Species, which would introduce the seminal theory of evolution to the scientific community. Over 150 years later, the majority of scientists have come to a consensus in agreement with this theory, citing evidence in newer scientific research. In an average high school biology classroom, one may imagine an instructor that has devoted much of his life to science and a predominantly Christian class of about twenty-five students. On the topic of evolution, one of the students might ask, “Why would God have taken the long route by creating us through billion years of evolution?” while another student may claim “The Book of Genesis clearly says that the earth along with all living creatures was created in just six days, and Biblical dating has proven that the earth is only 6000 years old.” Finally a third student interjects with the remark “maybe the Bible really is just a book, and besides, science has basically already proven that evolution happened, and is continuing to happen as we speak.” A secular country like our own does and should treat each argument as valid. However, only the third student’s argument cites scientific backing. Is it fair that we are denying that intelligent design be taught as an alternative to evolution in our science classes? When a belief has no legitimate scientific backing, it is not science, but rather a philosophy, whereas biology is in fact science, which is why intelligent design does not belong in science classes in public schools.
Evolution and Intelligent Design being taught in public schools is a growing controversy. Both supporters and augmenters have been clashing over different perspectives on wither intelligent design should replace evolution as part of the scientific curriculum. The controversy has lead to multiple court cases and religious dispute. The main issue when it comes to teaching this idea of science in our schools is the idea of conforming to an idea without solid evidence. Students whom are required to learn intelligent design rather than Darwin’s idea of evolution will be directly confronted on their moral and religious beliefs. In addition, students will develop a less understanding of science.
In conclusion, Creationism should be taught in public schools. Even if there are strictly atheists or agnostic students and teachers. The only reason people become atheists is because of something that happened in their past. For this to become completely effective the teachers and school boards would first of all have to be convinced on the subject. People look at evolution as an easy way to prove history. Many people have trouble with Creation because you have to have faith in the things unseen. For example, many people haven’t seen a million dollars, but does that mean it doesn’t exist. It’s the same concept with Creation.
In the uncertainty that the modern world is, there is one law that stays petrified in stone no matter what happens: “Things change with age.” No matter if it is in history, science, or even Pokémon, things change as time passes by and this process is called evolution. The theory formulated by Charles Darwin is the belief that all organisms have come from earliest creatures because of external factors (“NSTA…”). School boards everywhere have accepted the theory of Evolution as fact making it essential to be in the curriculums of science classrooms. However, over the years, controversy has arisen as the fact that is evolution is still only a theory with flaws and setbacks, efficiently making other theories (i.e. intelligent design) a viable alternate in the classroom. The law, on the other hand, had a different idea about these other theories with numerous bans them from schools, claiming them to be against the second amendment. Despite the bitter debate of rather or not it is valid and right for teaching (primarily alone) the theory of evolution lies as being the most reliable and accurate way to teach how the modern world came to be.
... in species. Evolution, a fully objective topic, is indeed backed by large quantities of convincing research, and children should be free to have their minds opened to this important law of nature. Darwin actually documented his own doubts in evolution as it was first proposed, but as more data was gathered he began to firmly believe his theory was correct. There is more than enough research to convince people of this scientific truth; all that is needed is more open-mindedness among students and teachers alike. The objective facts supporting Darwinism show that the topic is something that students should have a right to learn. As our knowledge of science evolves, it is clear that evolution will one day be fully accepted. At this point, however, people should work to expedite this acceptance for the advancement of science and the liberation of the minds of students.