In light of Charles Darwin’s “Origin of the Species”, Christians and Jews have been forced to evaluate the nature of Scripture and think about how their sacred texts should be read. As expected, some religious people do not see evolution as conflicting with their faith, while others, especially many conservative Christians, see evolution as inherently contradictory to what they believe. These discrepancies are interesting in their own right, but become even more fascinating when those who oppose evolution argue that either evolution should not be taught in public schools, or that creationism (the idea that God created the world as depicted in Genesis) should be taught in science class alongside Darwin’s theory. Vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, for example, has voiced support for this proposal.
This article by Robert Mitchum discusses a recent letter written by a group of rabbis supporting the teaching of evolution in the public schools. They argue that Darwinian evolution in no way hinders their religious views. Furthermore, and in response to the conservative agenda to also teach creationism, Rabbi Oler says, “Creationism and intelligent design are particularly religious matters that don't belong in public school system.”
In many ways this is similar to the debates in the mid 1800s about the appropriateness of reading the Bible in the public schools. While supporters of the practice argued that reading the Bible was nonsectarian, they really meant that it was generally Protestant, instead of denominationally focused. Not surprisingly, non-protestants found this practice offensive and moved to have it eliminated from the curriculum. Similarly, supporters of teaching creationism in schools are generally not Muslims, Hindus, or Agnostics; rather it is only those in the “in circle” who maintain that teaching creationism is an inclusive practice. To those on the outside it is unwanted religious propaganda.
In the end, while individuals are welcome to denounce evolution for belief in creationism if they wish, creationism has no place in the science classroom. Simply put, it is unfounded on scientific grounds. Excluding a scientifically based theory with religious overtones would be a different issue completely. However, given that creationism and intelligent design have virtually no support within the scientific community, the only realm creationism should be discussed (at school) is in the historical. Yet, many students familiar with the biblical narratives will have questions about what evolution means in light of the stories they heard growing up. Teachers should not shy away from discussing the history of the debate that has ensued in recent years, and should be ready to point students to religious leaders in the community who are willing to discuss the intersection of religion and science. The attempt to teach creationism in the name of “teaching multiple perspectives” must be resisted, for, as these rabbis argue, creationism is clearly a religious idea, and should not be sanctioned by a government school.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
I agree that creationism and intelligent design should not be taught in a science classroom. I do believe that both topics should be taught in the historical sense. I went to a public school and when I was in high school I was taught about the different theories of how everything came about in history. Of course there were religious undertones to what I was taught but it was interesting to see where each theory came from and why they came about. My thought is that as long as all aspects are thought there should be no reason as to why it cannot be taught.
The view of the author of this point is likely relatively close with precedent regarding this issue. While the Supreme Court has yet to rule if the act of teaching creationism itself is unconstitutional they did find that a Louisiana statue that required equal time be spent teaching creationism and evolution was a violation of the establishment clause. This case, Edward v. Aguillard, argues that creationsim may be used to critique certain aspects of evolution but not required to have equal footing as evolution theories by the State. Equally telling are the cases from both the 7th Circuit (Webster v. New Lenox School District) and the 9th Circuit (Reloza v. Capistrano School District) cases that found the teaching of creationism to be a violation of the First Amendment and where denied cert by the Supreme Court.
I would agree creationism cannot be taught as the sole explanation, however, all sides of the argument should be represented in schools. I think schools have an obligation to teach every angle, and allow the students to decide which to truly follow. To deny students the theory of evolution (and it is only a theory) really contradicts the essence of education and its goals. As a society, we should strive to give students all the tools necessary to make the decisions for themselves. What kind of society are we creating in which we deny students this basic ability? Does it not show signs of George Orwell's, 1984? Come on now. Let's think progressively.
Post a Comment