1

CG
Tanis
54
Nov. 15, 2009
Creationism Creating Controversy in Public Schools CAN be Prevented

Creationism is not a science, yet year after year, decade after decade, century after

century, creationists have been trying to force their theistic curriculum into the United States

public school biology classes in place of evolution. Evolution, a tested, proven theory for the

existence of man has managed to prevail over various accusations and attempts made by

Creationists to “disprove” it. Nevertheless, bible-thumping teachers, students, parents, and

politicians have yet to give up their cause. This fight of religion versus science has caused

startling figures for the belief in what is proven and what is speculation. Only 13% of Americans

believe that evolution is the true theory for the existence of mankind, and this is against years of

information in favor of it, yet these non-believers have a lack of faith in science because they say

that evolution has a lack of evidence. This hasn’t kept it from being considered untrue, as only

5% of scientists believe in Creationism, which shows a great deal about how science relates to

creationism: it doesn’t. The fact is, the two have very little to nothing in common and therefore

should not be associated, especially in biology classes in public schools. It is an insult to the

intelligence of the youth and a waste of time and money for those who practice and fund it. A

major reason Creationism shouldn’t be taught is because it’s unproven; it’s nearly identical

theory of Intelligent Design (ID) isn’t either. Evolution is proven, according to scientific

standards. It decreases science literacy in the youth of Americans. Most importantly, it breaks the

law: it defies the constitutional amendment separating Church and State. Creationism is an

irrational curriculum for the United States and to teach it would be the wrong decision.

Creationists believe in six main ideas. They believe the universe came from nothing,

mutations and natural selection do not depend on a single organism, the change of plants and

animals have fixed limits, humans have a different ancestry than animals, geology is from a great
 2
CG
Tanis
54
Nov. 15, 2009
flood (Similar to the story of Noah’s Arc), and that everything was created in the last 10,000

years (Pollit). However, scientists find this a difficult thing to conceive as fact. Christian

Apologetics is a sect of Christianity that is specifically designated to make Creationism accepted

fact. They do this by creating a rational basis for the faith and defend it when objections are

made against it. Apologetics also aims to point out flaws in other explanations for existence man.

Basically, their responsibility is to prove creationism, but they have yet to do so. In 2004 parents

sued the Arkansas school board after teachers read a one minute disclaimer pointing out gaps in

evolutionary theory, thus implying to kids that creationism had no gaps (Carroll). This case is

known as McLean v. Akansas. Parents were angered because even if, somewhere, there is a gap

in evolution, it is nothing compared to the gaps in creationism. Judge William Overton, who

oversaw the case, ruled that creation science does not qualify as a science (DeWolf). He came to

this conclusion because of rules set by Michael Ruse (a philosopher of biology and known for

work on controversies involving Creationism) that determine sciences validity. These rules

include the proposed science being explanatory by natural law, testable against empirical word,

tentative, and falsifiable (DeWolf). Ruse also testified that because creationism has a creator as

its cause of events in history of life that it could never be considered a science, categorizing

Creationism as a religion. Even Eugene F. Chaffin, a creationist with a PhD in theoretical

nuclear physics, stated, “Creationism contradicts prevailing and widely accepted biological and

geological evidence of earth’s age and origins… being a creationist requires a leap of faith all its

own” openly admitting that the theory he believes in isn’t very strong (Buckner). Creationists try

to use the bible as a valid text book for the curriculum that would be and is used in public

schools. This adds to its invalidity because there is no physical proof or living witnesses of the

events in the bible. St. Augustine, known as the “defender of truth and shepherd of souls”
 3
CG
Tanis
54
Nov. 15, 2009
(Portalié), criticized Christians who “talk nonsense” about the laws of Nature. On top of that,

Darwin himself was very religious, yet this didn’t stop him from being a scientist, hypothesizing

and supporting evolution.

Darwin believed in his theory of evolution because it is the most durable scientific theory

(Alter). It is defined s the change in characteristics of a population over time. This is a proven

fact because there is physical evidence (fossils, recorded history, and living proof) that such a

change has occurred (Carroll). Creationism cannot similarly justify the bibles credibility. In

rebuttal to the accused gaps in evolution, theorists say that evolution does not literally prove

creation of mankind. They are only explanations of why or how evolution has occurred. The

factual component is that these events have occurred and therefore must be explained by

something, or to put it bluntly, “saying evolution is true is the same as saying the Earth orbits the

Sun- it’s a fact” (Carroll). It’s a fact and it’s also blatantly obvious. Like astrology, which proves

this point, evolution fits a scientific criteria of adequacy (namely that it is falsifiable, predicts

future events, leads to further discoveries, and exists) and creationism does not (Pollit). They say

that evolution, along with biology, geology, archeology, and astrophysics, isn’t true because

“god didn’t create them” (Pollit). Nevertheless all these theories are proven scientifically,

therefore disproving creationist and ID theories that science isn’t valid because of the absence of

a designer. This is a great example of Creationists stumbling on their own theories. In the 1600s

mathematical formulas and equations were created to translate Genesis into a modern calendar,

including the creation of the world (by God, of course) on a Saturday night on October 22, 4004;

and the creation of Adam in the Fall of 3928 B.C. (Buckner). Even if this is correct information,

Creationism goes against science and logic (as mathematical formulas are scientific) to prove

that science can’t be right. The hypocrisy and irony of the situation is overwhelming. If this, in
 4
CG
Tanis
54
Nov. 15, 2009
some mangled way, disproves evolution, Evolutionists still have a comeback: Scientific

conclusion is hardly, if ever, come about from singularly logical methods (ADL). Still,

Creationists demand purely logical methods, even though when they are asked to do the same,

they cry discrimination (ADL). Essentially evolution tests biblical theories and explains them

scientifically, and Creationists find this insulting, though, “Would creationists argue that…

crimes which occur unwitnessed should not be prosecuted?” (Pollit). If something is

unwitnessed, it must be investigated, if not the world would lose important, confirmed data.

The main idea is not that creationism is untrue (although due to scientific evidence, one

cannot argue with that statement), but that it is not a decent curriculum for America’s public

school students. In truth, students have become so uninterested in science that the U.S.

government at the Pentagon hired scientists in 2005 to write screen plays to make it more

appealing to the youth (Alter). The lack of interest is due to the little students know because of

the unnecessary controversy over evolution and other scientifically verified theories. Creationist

practices and attempts to teach invalid facts in schools will continue to contribute to the problem.

Based on what the youth of the nation has been taught, 80% of the U.S. believes God created the

earth (Adams). It can be assumed that scientific facts are being ignored in certain regions to

complement religious beliefs. This comes from the right wing notion that conventional biology is

atheistic (Alter). But scientists do not say that there is no god, but that there is no proof of one

and in turn, religious theories of science (Alter). A board member that was against the disclaimer

in McLean v. Board of Education case in Arkansas put it simply, “Science does not investigate

evidence of the supernatural. Once you have supernatural explanations, you no longer have

science.” (Adams). Consequently, evolutionists are not responsible for considering Creationist

theories, and neither is the public school system. According to this conclusion, Creationism is
 5
CG
Tanis
54
Nov. 15, 2009
not the solution to increasing interest in science. In 1999 Kansas government banned public

schools from teaching evolution (Adams) but it was shortly reversed two years later when in

2001 conservatives were removed from the school board. On top of that, when Curtis Brickley, a

born-again minister who is known for trying to force God into public schools, tried to integrate

ID into a Darby, Montana school in 2004, the proposed curriculum only received 3 out of the 5

necessitated votes for approval (Carroll-Forrest). He then rephrased the term ID to “objective

origins” and it was approved. Why is this a priority for certain devout Christians in the U.S.? The

teaching of evolution is not an issue in other countries; even Christian denominations allow it

(Carroll-Forrest). Other countries, as of late, have been advancing faster than the U.S., especially

in the prestigious fields of math and science; perhaps America should follow suit. To try to gain

strength behind the agenda to inseminate a Creationistic curriculum into public schools Anti-

Evolutionists have compiled lists of scientists who believe in the theory that Genesis is the

explanation for mankind (as opposed to evolution), or who doubt evolution (Carroll). The lists

fail at making evolution seem faulty as they don’t include many biologists, the key scientists in

regards to the subject. Also, very few scientists actually sign in verification of these lists, perhaps

because they understand that ID isn’t a prestigious belief in the science world.

Anti-evolutionists persevere further though when they use phrases like “strengths and

weaknesses” of evolution. There reason? To promote “critical thinking”; but many people find

this to be a cover-up to persuade school boards to buy their textbook, “From Pandas to People”

.They also use “happy” terms like “fairness” and “both sides” to make it seem friendlier and less

combative against evolution. (Carroll-Forrest). The theistic belief remains an insufficient lesson

for children. After teaching genesis (which, honestly, takes about an hour to teach to seven-year-

old Sunday school kids), teachers are left with little to teach other than “evolution didn’t happen”
 6
CG
Tanis
54
Nov. 15, 2009
(Scott). Its further dilapidation results from its tendency to be, “called an argument from

ignorance as it relies on the lack of knowledge for its conclusion: Lacking natural explanation,

we assume intelligent cause” (Scott). Creationism is inappropriate for the classroom because it

states that evolution does not explain enough of the complications that exist in human life on

Earth. They wish for science to recognize the “reality” of a designer (ADL), yet Creationist

theories remain inadequate as substantial, factual material. If creationism is taught to students in

America, the country will continue to see a decrease in science literacy.

Various controversies are dismissed and solved every year by the United States Supreme

Court for being unconstitutional. Creationism has had a long history of going against the

amendment separating church and state, a law that has kept many conflicts at bay throughout

history. For example, in 1925 a Tennessee high school teacher was found guilty for teaching

evolution, and evolution was then banned along with any other theory that denies the validity of

divine creaton of man from the bible, and any teaching that man evolved from animals

(Buckner). 15 other states shortly followed with the same verdict (Adams). Then, 62 years later

(1987) the Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard (a case started specifically to reverse

the law against evolution called “The Louisiana Creationism Act) that the Louisiana Creationism

act was unconstitutional (Buckner). The constitutional amendment addressing the separation of

church and state states, “the [religious] devotion of the people has been manifestly increased by

the total separation of the church from the state” (ADL). This outraged many people but they

received the response that, “Evolution is not controversial in the field of science. It’s

controversial in the public sphere because public education is highly politicized” (Adams),

reasoning that the idea of including religion in a public, federally sponsored, education goes

profoundly against the amendment. Not only is it clearly against the law to teach Creationism
 7
CG
Tanis
54
Nov. 15, 2009
instead of evolution, but it is not required to teach at all, even when it’s not in a science

classroom but in an environment encouraging classroom discussion of current topics in society.

Yet some creation fundamentalists argue that it is offensive for children who believe in the

divinity of mans existence to be taught evolution. This is a common argument, and should

probably be considered, until one thinks of the similar complaints of other types of students,

“Black students have to read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn despite the offensiveness of

the N-Word” (Pollit), so should the situation be changed just for Creationist students? This

would be an act of racism besides the fact that it is against the law to remove evolution and

replace it with religion. Theories of evolution do not have to be taught, even for “integrity’s

sake” because as previously mentioned, religious theories of creation are not a scientific

explanation for evolution (and therefore do not belong in the science classroom), and it is

unconstitutional and harmful to teach in public school (ADL). However, a public school teacher

has the right to teach creation, but only as an example of an different religion in a class that

discusses the subject, but again, it is not required (ADL).

Citizens who value the democratic way of life in the United States, whose people and

their ancestors have fought so hard to create and uphold, must consider the agenda of

Creationists trying to include Genesis in scientific academia. Since ID’s (the “scientific” way of

stating Creationist theories) inception about 16 years ago, its theorists have fought against public

education and the constitution, and “the undermining of Church and State separation will mean

the undermining of science education as well” (Carroll-Forrest). Even Dr. William Dembski, a

distinguished philosopher, mathematician, and ID enthusiast, describes teaching evolution as,

“Ground zero for cultural war”, because teaching this theory puts the U.S. toward a secular

society, one the country has avoided for the last two centuries (Carroll-Forrest). In turn it will
 8
CG
Tanis
54
Nov. 15, 2009
decrease religious tolerance because Christian science, which is based on their own god, is legal,

but other religions with other gods will not be. Teaching these religious theories can harm/offend

other religious peoples. According to a literal reading of the Protestant book of Genesis (which is

the basis for Creationist belief) differs greatly from that of A Catholic or Jewish persons. It

defeats the efforts of the U.S. trying to respect secular and non-secular beliefs (ADL). The entire

movement has a, “more ominous side: Its leaders attack the secularism and religious tolerance

that are vital to constitutional democracy” (Carroll-Forrest). In summary¸ Creationism cannot be

taught because it goes against the country’s ethics and constitution, they way its citizens live

their lives.

Creationism is the worst possible curriculum for American public schools. It has little to

no fact behind it. It makes the country’s students and teachers ignorant in comparison with other

countries, and it breaks the law. The validity of a creationist curriculum is summed up by Judith

Hayes, a famous atheist and author of the “Happy Heretic” column online, when she states, “If

we are going to teach creation science as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach

the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction”, as in to teach this illogical concept

would give students intelligence equal to four-year-old child. For the aforementioned reasons,

teaching Creationism would be educationally suicidal in the American public school systems.
 9
CG
Tanis
54
Nov. 15, 2009

Works Cited

Adams, William Lee. "The Classroom: Other Schools of Thought." Opposing

Viewpoints. GALE. Web. 27 Sept. 2009.

Alter, Jonathan. "Monkey See, Monkey Do." EBSCOhost. 12 Aug. 2005. Web.

28 Sept. 2009. <http://web.ebscohost.com>.

Buckner, Brett. "A Brief History of Creationism and its Opposition to

Evolutionary Theory." ESBCOhost. 14 Feb. 2009. Web. 6 Oct. 2009.

<http://web.ebscohost.com>.

Carroll, Jamuna. "Science Classes Do Not Need Disclaimers that Evolution is

Only a Theory." Opposing Viewpoints. GALE, 2008. Web. 6 Oct. 2009.

<http://find.galegroup.com>.

DeWolf, David K., Stephen C. Meyer, and Mark E. DeForrest. "Intelligent

Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook." Access

Research Network. Web. 13 Oct. 2009.

<http://www.arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm>.

Forrest, Barbara Carrol. "Intelligent Design Movement Undermines the

Separation of Church and State." Opposing Viewpoints. GALE, 2008.

Web. 6 Oct. 2009. <http://find.galegroup.com>.

 10
CG
Tanis
54
Nov. 15, 2009
Pollit, Katha. "Weird Science." Opposing Viewpoints. GALE, 20 Sept. 1999.

Web. 30 Sept. 2009. <http://find.galegroup.com>.

Portalié, Eugène. "Life of St. Augustine of Hippo." The Catholic Encyclopedia.

Robert Appleton Company. Web. 16 Nov. 2009.

"Religion in the Science Class? Why Creationism and Intelligent Design Don't

Belong." ADL: Fighting Anti-Semitism, Bigotry and Extremism. Web. 13

Oct. 2009.

<http://www.adl.org/issue_religious_freedom/create/creationism_QA.as

p>.

Scott, Eugenie C., and Glenn Branch. ""Intelligent Design" Not Accepted by

Most Scientists | NCSE." NCSE | National Center for Science Education -

Defending the Teaching of Evolution in Public Schools. 12 Aug. 2002.

Web. 13 Oct. 2009. <http://ncse.com/creationism/general/intelligent-

design-not-accepted-by-most-scientists>.