Despite the scientific and legal support for teaching evolution and against teaching creation science, an uninformed public can still be swayed by what seem to be “scientific” and logical arguments. By making “evolution” synonymous with “anti-religious” or disbelief in a creator, creationists have successfully intimidated citizens and public figures into silence or reluctance to take a stand on this issue. The Supreme Court of the United States says that legislature, ”cannot require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any particular religious sect or doctrine.” (Epperson v. Arkansas, 1968) Pro-Creationists turn this around by arguing that equal time ought to be given to Evolution and Creationism in public science curriculum because by only teaching evolution, the government is giving precedent to a particular doctrine. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment does not permit any regulations that respect the establishment of and principles or prohibitions of a particular religious sect. Therefore, Pro-Creationists argue that to bring forth Evolutionism without giving equal time to Creationism would violate the values of voluntarism and pluralism that are central to the establishment clause.
The Essay on Evolution vs Creation 3
Teaching evolution in schools is a highly debated issue between science and religion. In Kansas, the State Board of Education has decided to de-emphasize evolution in favor of the creation story. Throughout the science community, it is believed that evolution should be taught in school because of all the scientific evidence that points to the validity of evolution and because it is a cornerstone ...
In order to address the argument of giving equal time, I must bring up that Evolutionism is most certainly not the theory of a particular dogma. Rather it is a fallible conjecture that has overwhelming evidence. In addition, it is not possible to bring forth all creation theories given by all sects and give them all the equal time they deserve. One cannot solely bring forth the account of origin from the Christian book of Genesis for the reason that it conflicts with evolution theory.
Still others argue that if equal time cannot be given, then rid the science curriculum of Evolutionism all together. There would be no conflicts and the problem would be neutralized. The United States Supreme Court expresses “that a comprehensive science education is undermined when it is forbidden to teach evolution except when creation science is also taught.” (Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987) Darwin’s theory of evolution that animals and plants have their origins in others and that their distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations is a keystone in modern biological theory. Evolutionism revolutionized biology, especially the divisions of genetic and molecular biology. modern science sits on the theories of Darwin. There would be little to teach without it’s foundation in the classroom.
Creationists need not have concern however, because in accordance with scientific method, all conclusions made in regards to evolution are tentative and are by no means the final word. Evolution is not set in stone. The scientific method also holds as a matter of course that all conclusions are tentative, and that nothing can ever be absolutely proven to a certainty. If new and compelling evidence against evolution were discovered, the scientific community would alter its “theory” of creation.
In terms of the public school curriculum however, until such new and compelling evidence can be presented, in order to maintain the standards set forth in the constitution and to preserve the modern science disciplines, Creationism is out, and Evolutionism is in.
The Essay on Evolution Science
Will believers in Intelligent Design be able to embrace the incredibly promising and innovative solutions outlined in Luke Bawazer’s Tedtalk while rejecting Darwin’s theory? Yes. One will be able to believe in intelligent Design while embracing Mr. Bawazer’s ideals. It is easy to see that Darwin’s theory is not longer accurate as we learn more about life at a molecular level. Darwin ...
