The United States was created with a definite barrier between church and state. Nevertheless, the debate about the teaching of evolution as opposed to creationism in U.S. public schools has had a long history. These days, with the wealth of scientific information that is known and being discovered, one would hope it is a widely accepted notion that evolution is the only plausible explanation for the diverse development of life on Earth. Unfortunately, there are still those who cling to the idea of creationism and are trying to reincorporate it into school curricula as a valid alternative to evolution.
Indiana's State Senate recently approved Senate Bill 89, which would allow the teaching of creationism in Indiana public school science classes. The bill passed with a 28-22 vote and will be presented to the Indiana House soon. According to Indiana Senator Scott Schneider, there should be alternate theories to evolution available to students. "What are we afraid of?" Schneider asked. "Allowing an option for students including creation science as opposed to limiting their exposure?"
Indiana's approach to evolution is not isolated, either. Oklahoma, New Hampshire and Missouri have also proposed teaching alternatives to evolution in public schools.
It is utterly disappointing that there are people who endorse the teaching of a faith-based theory in state schools. Though there exist many strains of creationism, the version most likely to be taught in U.S. schools would be based on a Judeo-Christian biblical narrative. Though it has been debated, the United States was not founded on any Christian principles. In fact, several of the founding fathers were understandably skeptical of religion. In keeping with their ideals, to promote religious viewpoints as fact in public schools is to transgress the separation of church and state.
What is particularly irksome about Senate Bill 89 is that it allows teachers to portray creationism as being on par with empirical science. In reality, the theory of creationism is the very antithesis of science. Science classes should teach students about that which has been deduced or experimentally calculated. Students are generally taught early in their schooling about the scientific method, which steers them in the direction of careful observation and analysis in order to inductively prove a hypothesis. Those who teach creationism seek to explain the existence of life without recourse to any likely causes, thus bastardizing the practice of science.
This is not to say that creationism has absolutely no place in schools. If a student is taking a theology class, Biblical creationism should definitely be a topic. Here, though, such creationism would be taught to give students a better understanding of the Christian faith and not as a potentially truthful alternative to evolution. Other theories of the origin of life from throughout history could also be taught in such a setting. For instance, the beliefs held by Muslims and Hindus could be presented alongside the beliefs that were held by Ancient Greeks or Egyptians. Indeed, it would also seem logical to teach students about different religions' beliefs in an attempt to stop religious ignorance and prejudice and to make students more well-rounded in their knowledge of religious cultures.
Evolutionary biologist and famous critic of religion Richard Dawkins believes the Bible should be taught as literature in schools. This would better enable students to understand historical works of literature and culture, he explains. He brings up a reasonable point. The Bible has had a massive impact on Western civilization. By better understanding biblical scripture, one can more easily decipher the allusions to its content found across art and works of literature. Moreover, a knowledge of the Bible helps one understand the rationale behind wars, political moves and international relations.
The problem in Indiana is not that schools will be allowed to teach creationism, but that they will do so and label it as fact. This will leave the teaching of creationism in science up to the personal discretion of teachers, who may freely mislead and waste the time of their students. Such a move is akin to teaching students that the sun revolves around the Earth when all evidence has for some time pointed to the contrary.
Teaching creationism in secondary science classes is a terrible idea. Matters of faith have no business coinciding with evolution as plausible theories for the development of life. In actuality, all religious opinions concerning the origin of life - not just creationism - are equally unsuitable for a science class because none of them contain any bona fide data, and none can be explained by scientific deliberation.\n
Alex Yahanda's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at a.yahanda@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | YesterdayStudent journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
PARTING SHOT: Confessions of a nepo baby
By Grace Thrush | YesterdayWhile I can’t point to one specific “aha” moment where I finally started to dispel my self-consciousness and claim my pride for the paper, I got there gradually over the course of my term as managing editor.
PARTING SHOT: Asked and answered
By Honor Wood | 2 days agoLooking back, the answer has been abundantly clear all along. I did it for the people.
