creationism in schools
In Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee's play, Inherit The Wind, one character, Cates, remarks: "Living comes from a long miracle, it didn't just happen in seven days." The play was based on the "Monkey Trial" of 1925, where a science teacher is put on trial for teaching evolution to his biology class. The issue of teaching creationism in the public schools has long been debated. "Creation Science" is simply the practice of science with the assumption and acknowledgement that there is a creator God. Over the years many different arguments have been made. First creationists tried to have the teaching of evolution outlawed. This issue went to the Supreme Court in 1968, where in Epperson v. Arkansas the high court ruled against banning the teaching of evolution. Soon after this decision creationists began to call for 'equal time', or the equal treatment of creation theory and evolution theory. When this attempt also failed creationists turned to 'creation science' (Grunes 465).Today the major argument for the teaching of creationism in public schools is that creationism is a scientific theory and should be taught alongside evolution. The combatants against creationism being taught in public schools are those who believe creation s
A final view in the creation debate is that creation is religion thus it should not be taught in public schools. Those who are against the mandate of creation science being given equal time use the law to support them. Courts have ruled that by mandating the teaching of creation science, the religious doctrine is required to be taught, which has no secular purpose (Grunes 475). The First Amendment of the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It is interpreted as saying that the government is required to demonstrate a secular legislative purpose, not to advance or inhibit any religion, and to prevent the government's regulations on an individual's religious beliefs (467-68). In another Supreme Court decision in 1987, Edwards v. Aguillard, creation was labeled a religious idea. Therefore its teaching represents a state advocacy of that religion, which violates the establishment clause in the First Amendment (Scott 10). Those organizations that advocate creation science are viewed as trying to cover up religion as science (Grunes 470). Their purpose is seen as trying to advance religion, not protecting or promoting student's academic freedom. It is believed that a theory involving the supernatural intervention of a Creator is religion, not science (Ruse 301). Ruse stated in his testimony, "As someone trained in the philosophy of religion, in my opinion creation science is religion" (306). Parents trust that their children's classroom will not be used to advance the religious views of others which may conflict with their own (Grunes 477). By allowing the teaching of creation, this trust between educational institution and parent is lost. Many people feel that creation science is only an attempt to side step the religious issue. Since religious beliefs cannot be taught in public schools the creationists "repackaged the Bible as science" (10). This statement causes one to consider if the Bible is a scientific book. Many creationists would agree that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and not a scientific book. Yet, creation scientists want us to believe th
Some common words found in the essay are:
Creation Research, Epperson Arkansas, Word God, Amendment Scott, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Constitution Congress, Inherit Wind, creation science, Monkey Trial, Creation Science, Edwards Aguillard, public schools, creation scientists, taught public schools, teaching evolution, taught public, teaching creation, scientific evidences, creationism scientific, creationism taught, scientific creationism, creationism public schools, teaching creation science, creation science evolution, creation science viewed,
Approximate Word count = 1464
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
