February 2, 2004
GUEST BELI-BLOGGER BRADLEY W: EVOLUTION "AND" CREATIONISM IN THE CLASSROOM
The debate over teaching creationism or evolution as scientific theory dates back to the 1925 trial of John T. Scopes, who was convicted of teaching evolution in a Dayton, Tenn., high school. Scopes was held in violation of the 1925 Butler Act, which made it unlawful to "teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible." The Tennessee Supreme Court dismissed his conviction on appeal, and the law was repealed in 1967.
During the 1970s and 1980s, bills to require the teaching of creation science were introduced in more than 20 states. Only Arkansas and Louisiana, though, passed such laws. The Arkansas law was overturned by a federal district court in 1982. And in 1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Louisiana law, which prohibited the teaching of evolution unless it was accompanied by a "balanced treatment" of creation theory. The Kansas Board of Education proposed and continues to debate the omission of the word "evolution" from their curriculum and all textbooks.
Fast forward to today, 2004.
Schoolhouses are once again a site of this battle, as debates rage on which theory belongs in the science classroom. State legislatures, seeking to define the roles of church and state, continue to grapple with how to teach religious issues in the classroom. In a recent firestorm, Former President Jimmy Carter criticized the Georgia Department of Education over a proposal to eliminate the word "evolution" from the state's curriculum.
In a game of smoke and mirrors, how does this really achieve any goal in curriculum matters and pedagogy of educators? A claim that "evolution" is a buzzword denies the fact that this term has been used to describe a 'theory', just as 'creationism' is used to describe a 'theory'... creationism is also used as a buzzword in the same reference. Why exclude one term without excluding competing terminology.
My recommendation is:
Require all publicly funded schools to teach a series of courses in critical thinking, ethics, and morality. Not only would this explore the intersection of religion (historically) and science, but also provide students with much needed skills in thinking critically about subject matter that is controversial. These skills lack in virtually every public school student entering college, when they could be taught at an earlier age. Providing the students with a framework, information, and the right skills will better prepare them to question both sides of any issue, without being "told" that this "is" the only theory. This solution would enable educators to teach science in the science classroom, and creationism (other topics as well, and not just the Christian worldviews) in another class. There is no reason to close the doors to free speech (thinking) and reasoning when a solution exists to satisfy all, especially if it can further the education of our young minds in their preparation for the world. Far too often, our children today don't think for themselves, or don't think critically about issues as important as this is.
Good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science. This can't be done in the science classroom. It is not appropriate, I believe, to discuss creationism in reference to the theory of evolution in a science classroom, because the educator cannot properly cover subject material that would adhere to the standard of non-coercive teaching and invalidates their own scientific training and claims thereof. Academically, the science educator is not equipped with the training to teach creationism. How many go to a religion class to learn the fine nuances of evolution? Never, unless the class is on the intersection and nature of science in religion and religion in science. The educator would also be teaching the student in a coercive manner that 'this' Biblical, Christian theory is something that you should consider as a valid, proven claim "against" evolution, much as a student could be coerced into praying. The other problems introduced to the educator, and in return the student, are which "creationist" view do you teach? There are at least 500 different creation stories to draw from - all different. If conservatives want just "creation science" taught, which version: New earth or old earth? Support of one claim doesn't teach a student to think critically about subject matter. It breeds exclusion and gives credence to one religious world-view over another. Not to mention, this can generate intolerance in the classroom and overall school environment towards those of another faith.
Resources on Religion and Science
Metanexus Institute
Science and Spirit
John Templeton Foundation
Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science
Posted by at February 2, 2004 11:19 AM
| TrackBack
Which came first the chicken or the egg? That is a matter of opinion and can be debated all day long... Because you can't have one without the other. "Creation" and "Evolution" are based on theories and hypothesis. NO ONE person alive today was there.
Science in a classroom should be taught to keep the student alive by thinking (as you pointed out). No scientific anything can be a fact unless you can prove it. Scientists are working today to prove things and invent. ALL known "theories" should be available to a student. It is a case of censure and bias to exclude any evidence that might become a fact.
Science is probably the hardest place for educators in school policy to put boundaries on. You are damned if you do and damned if you don't. At home I teach the value of diverse thinking and point out the points of both theories and state my choice (as a reference only and state why I think that way based on what I know).
GREAT "thought provoking" POST!
Evolution is a widely accepted SCIENTIFIC theory and shold be taught in science classroom. Creationism (at least in the predominant form in today's American discourse) is a minimally-accepted RELIGIOUS theory even among American Christians. Most mainline denominations do not adhere to such a literal creation story, but use the Genesis 1 & 2 texts as creation myths showing the work of God in the beginning of human (Israelite) history, not as a chronological account of the literal beginnings of man & woman.
Religious theories should not be taught in public classrooms. To do so suggests academic laziness and a wholesale disregard for rational learning.
Can Americans, students included, engage in thoughtful debate where science and faith intersect? Sure. It is done in a variety of settings. Value debates in high school speech programs are a great example. Also, many colleges have such science & values courses, most often interdisciplinary, to examine just such ideas. Churches & synagogues often engage their members and neighborhoods in such discussions. That is where these are appropriate.
