Teaching Creationism (vs. Evolution), should We Teach Creationism in The Science Curriculum at Public Schools?
Dion Ginanto
Teaching
creationism in public schools has become a debate among educators, parents,
as well as policy makers (Pennock, 2002). Berkman and Pulzer (2010) indicated
“the controversy over evolution in the classroom has been a hot war during the
opening decade of the twenty-first
century” (p. 13).The notion of teaching creationism in public schools appears in response to the teaching of the
evolution theory. There are several arguments behind the debate of the teaching
creationism at public schools, such as (1)
creationism should be taught in public schools and evolution should not; (2)
evolution should be taught and creationism should not; (3) teach both evolution
and creationism; (4) exclude both evolution and creationism in public schools. The proponents of creationism argued that it
is not fair if schools teach evolution
while on the other hand rejecting creationism. The arguments used to defend the
teaching of creationism at school includes:
freedom of speech, social justice, critical thinking, fairness, autonomy,
parents’ right, and conflicts with the religious values. Rawls for example, uses the argument of basic justice to advocate
the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative theory or in addition to Darwin
theory (Rawls, 1966 in Burtt, 2008). Pennock (2002) however, clearly opposes
the idea of the inclusion of creationism into science at the public schools in
order to avoid the conflicts in the classroom. In this article, I analyze the notion
of teaching creationism in science classrooms
especially in the public schools. Then, I will also discuss the reason why we should
teach creationism in addition to, or in place of, the theory of evolution.
Finally, I will give my alternative solution towards the debates of the
teaching creationism vs. evolution in the Public Schools.
Also read: Social Justice and Anti-Oppresive Education
The definition ofCreationism and Evolution
The
theory of evolution is the theory that all life has evolved from common
ancestors, not by optimal design but by
tinkering, by slowly modifying existing structures (Ayala, 2006 p. 79). Evolution
as I remembered when I was in junior high school, evolution theory believed
that initially, the human was not created
as human; rather, it was from the evolution of the Apes. I also still
remembered at that time when I asked my Biology teacher about why the current
Monkeys or Orang Utans were not naturally keep modifying themselves to be the
modern human beings, and my biological
teacher could only answer that she was actually opposing the idea of evolution.
The reason why she still taught evolution was because it was mandated by the
national curriculum. When we discuss evolution,
we automatically direct our mind to Darwin. In the Darwinian theory of evolution, it is theorized that (1) that all
present-day life is related, and (2) that the creatures existed through natural
selection. Therefore, if we believe in the theory of evolution, we need to also
believe that we share a common ancestor
with the apes/chimps: “it isn’t at all controversial that human beings share
common ancestors with chimps” (Sobber, 2009 p. 67).
The
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published a book entitled Science,
Evolution, and Creationism. This book is published to support the teaching of
evolution in the science classroom. This
book gives the public a comprehensive and up-to-date picture of the current
scientific understanding of evolution and
its importance in the science classroom
(National Academy of Sciences, 2008 in Berkman and Pulzer, 2010). NAS is therefore known as the loyal supporter of
evolution theory.
What about creationism theory? Creationism
according to Ayala (2006) is a movement that used by the religious-based in
order to oppose the evolution theory; that is the notion that the universe was
created by God from zero. Warnick and Fooce (2007) argued that teaching
creationism at public schools is considered important in order to facilitate
student autonomy. That is, religious creation stories offer significant
alternatives to our secular modernity world. In addition, according to the creation
science, evolution has never been proved scientifically, although it was widely
promoted as a scientific fact. Even, the evolutionist itself still calls it as
a theory of evolution (Morris, 1973 in Forrest, 2007). Besides creation science, there is also a
movement called intelligent design. Similar to creationist, intelligent design
see evolution as one misconception concerns the status of evolution as a fact,
that is the evolution theory is not merely a theory but it is an indisputable
fact: “only in the most trivial sense -change
over time- can evolution be considered
fact (Hartwig and Meyer, 1993 in Forrest, 2007).
On his book, Sober (2009) concluded
the meaning of intelligent design based on his observation and study, that
intelligent design theory argues that the species were created by the intelligent designer. The intelligent theory argues that it is not inadequate to theorize that the world exists from the process of the natural selection,
rather the existence of the universe provide a strong evidence for the
existence of an intelligence behind this (Reiss, 2011). There is also another
definition of intelligent design; according to Burtt (2008) intelligent design
(ID) argued that certain features of the universe and of living things are best
explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as
natural selection. Even though intelligent design is not rooted in the biblical
literal creationism, ID sometimes adds the force of God and some other natural force. If evolutionist has the main supporter known as NAS, the
intelligent design and creationist movement is also supported by the Center for
Science and Culture (CSC). It was established in 1996 as the creationist wing,
headquartered in Seattle (Forrest, 2007).
Despite the difference definition
between intelligent design and creationism, in this paper, however, I would like to disregard its difference, in order
to make it easier to consider creationism versus evolution.
The History of the Debate
The war between the evolutionist and
creationist started in the early 1920s and it remains with us today. The
continuity is a result if several factors. But most important perpetrator of this debate is because these
issues have been polarized into political arena (Berkman and Pulzer, 2010). The Republican has more favor in creationism while the Democratic Party gives
slightly a space for the evolutionist.
As I mentioned before that the
campaign of anti-evolutionist is started in the 1920s.
In March 1925, the Tennessee state legislature passed a bill that banned the
teaching of evolution in the science classroom, for all education institution.
This legislature bill was then known as Tennessee
vs Scopes. During this period of time, the anti-evolutionist movement was
organized, mobilized, motivated, and visible throughout the nation (Berkman and
Pulzer, 2010). As a result, the word “evolution” was eliminated from the textbooks, and all textbooks of biology were revised to meet the needs of the
fundamentalist.
Then in 1958, when the Soviet Union
was successful to launch their Sputnik satellite, had awakened many Americans to the need of better science education.
The new teaching materials were then distributed for science classroom in which
evolution had a prominent place in the materials as well as in the curriculum. After the great depression era, World War II,
and the Korean conflict, the anti-evolutionist who used to be dormant began to
react on the evolution theory. There are at least three more three major courts
advocating the teaching of creationism, as summarized by Forrest (2007):
Epperson v. Arkansas (1968), McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982), and
Edwards v. Aguillard (1987). They keep trying to campaign that evolution is
simply a theory, therefore, they mandate
the teaching of creationism (teaching creationism alone or if not, teaching
both theories altogether). In 1989, President Bush together with the governor
Arkansas Bill Clinton promoted a stronger
role for the national government in determining what state will teach. The America
2000: The Educate America Act was then adopted by most of the states in the
U.S. In 2001 The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act passed by the Congress which
then signed by President George W. Bush. In NCLB, the law mandated the increase of the highly qualified teachers, in
which all future Biology teachers need to take a semester-long course in
evolutionary biology. As a result, the
more rigorous education system which required high standard testing for the
students have created a pressure for creationist teachers. Now, it seems the
cold war which is started in the 1920s
will remain open.
Study
about Why We should/Should not Teach Creationism:
The
NCLB has obviously minimized teachers and students time to explore the
possibility of teaching creationism in the science subject. This is because the
teachers are demanded to make sure that they teach the contents from the
curriculum in order for the students to pass the standardized test if they do not want to get negative
consequences. But what is actually the rationale why we should/should not embed creationism in the curriculum as well:
Why we should not Teach Creationism
Now
after discussing the definition of evolution and creationism, let us then visit
the reasons why we should not teach creationism at school. Pennock (2002) is
one among scholars/philosophers who strongly oppose the idea of putting
creationism at the science curriculum. Similar
to Pennock, Sobber (2009) argued that the notion that God creates the organism
contradicted to and does not accord with what “we” observe; while he continued
that the evolution theory is better supported by the observation today. These
reasons below are the justifications that the evolutionist uses to oppose the creationism:
a.
Chery picking of Darwinism theory
The irony that evolutionist difficult
to accept is that there are some
evolution theories they accept, but deny
the others. For example, there has been
so many ID or creationist accepted that some organisms have evolved from
ancestors that were different from them. But at the same time, they could not
accept that some features, such as vertebrate eye, or the blood-clotting
mechanism of mammals, or the bacterial flagellum, are too complicated so that
they cannot have arisen by natural process. That is, there must be the
intervention of God for the complex features of the creations. Pennock (2002) on his paper “Should
Creationism be Taught in the Public Schools) criticized creationists, “but for
the most part, they keep their specific
commitments hidden and speak only of the generic thesis of “mere creation”
(p.9).
b.
Teaching science in combination of religious
doctrine
The
teachers would find it difficult to classify what creationism is; is it a
subject, is it a religion, is it science? If it is a subject, would it not be overwhelmed with the biology subject. If it
is science, then why they combine with the religion teaching. If it is a
religion, then what religion is this; is it a Protestant, Catholic, Buddhism,
Hinduism, Islam, or confusion? In
addition, Gutmann (1987) suggested that creationism is not supposed to be
taught in the science classroom, or to an alternative to science. This is
because there will be the inclination of
establishing a sectarian religion in the schools and this would indirectly
“restrict rational deliberation among competing ways of life” (p. 104). Gutmann
(1987) afraid that the teaching of creationism will undermine or erode the
shared, secular intellectual standards citizens use for democratic
deliberation. If the parents want their
children to have creationism then it is better for the parents to send their
kids to the private schools instead of sending
the kids to the public schools. Pennock
(2002) clearly recommended that all parents who want to get the creationism
taught to their children, they need to send their kids to the private religious
school which is “free to teach creationism
or whatever religious doctrine they choose.” (p.115)
c.
Evolution is based on scientific theory,
not an illusion.
According to Forest (2007), creationism and intelligent design should
not be taught in schools because it is false, due to the absent of the
scientific reasoning behind the idea of creationism. Similar to Forest (2007), Poole (2008)
contended religion is not a scientific theory, and in science theory it is odd
to turn the notion of God to turn to science. Creationism according to Forest
(2007) will teach the controversy to the students, and thus everybody including
the government need to be aware of the new attempts the creationist and
intelligent design activist to insert creationism into the public school
science classroom.
Unlike the creationism, evolution is
claimed to be scientific and that in science, it has nothing to say about the
assertion that God created the universe (Ayala, 2006). The theory of evolution,
according to the evolutionist, is supported by the overwhelming weight of scientific
evidence (Berkman & Pulzer, 2010; Pennock, 2002; & Sobber, 2009). Therefore, in order to avoid the confusion in
education, the separation of church and state is inevitable.
Why
We Should Teach Creationism
The argument
presented above about the reasons why we should not teach creationism does take
into account the issue of justice, freedom, autonomy in which have a special
space in a democratic nation. It is an irony, if we campaign freedom of thought
as well as freedom of speech to the world but at the same time we do not give
the opportunity for our students to study some alternative theory into their
science classroom.
a.
Critical thinking skills and freedom of
speech
If the schools approve the using of
biology textbook in which evolution theory is included, but at the same time do
not accommodate the teaching of creationism in the science classrooms; this is
an indication that the schools devalue the students’ critical thinking. In
addition, to teach students critical thinking, students
need to be presented both controversy theories and let the student learn the scientific argument for, and
against for both creationism and evolution. If students are only presented
either or, I am afraid that the certain theory will present a doctrine to a
certain theory and undermine another theory. Besides, if in the 1920s, the pro-evolutionist seeking justice by
bringing the argument that teaching evolution is part of the freedom of speech;
then we can argue that the same reasons should also be enacted toward the
teaching of the creationism. The pro-evolutionist,
Sobber (2009), even suggested that “there are many open questions in evolutionary,
as in science” (p.74); if so, why should we then prohibit teaching creationism
while the evolutionist themselves are still doubted the validity of the
evolution theory?
b.
Parents’ right
The proponents of creationism argue
that teachers at the public schools must teach what the taxpayers’ desire taught
(Bryan in Berkman & Pulzer, 2010). In
my opinion, education is held in order to meet both parents demand and the
community demand. The community demand in here means, education is expected to
empower an individual in order not to give burden to other community members. Parents, in this case, have a full right to
express what their children get and not get from the schools, including the
evolution and creation theory. If most of the parents in a community request to
the school to also teach creationism in addition to the evolution theory, the school, therefore, should find a way to fulfill
the parents’ demand. As a study by Berkman and Pulzer (2010) indicated that in
the American today, they support both creationism as well as evolution to be
taught in the science curriculum:
“In addition,
public opinion concerning evolution remains remarkably stable. Since the very
first opinion polls on evolution in the early 1920s, scientists have published
thousands of scientific papers that have fleshed out the details of evolution
and have reported fossil discoveries that filled important gaps in the
scientific record. The evidence consistent with a very old earth, of diverse
contemporary species having common ancestors, and of human origins in earlier
promotes is much stronger now than a quarter ago. And yet, U.S public opinion
has hardly changed. As in 1982, more Americans today prefer the teaching of
creationism to the teaching of the evolution, although the largest numbers of
citizens support the inclusion of both approaches.” (p. 217)
Given the majority opinion of the U.S
people today, there is no reason not to include creationism in the science
classroom. This does not mean that we need to eliminate the word evolution in
the textbook, in this case, however, to
teach both creationism and evolution in order to fulfill the parents demand. I would also answer the doubt the
evolutionist raised. They have a concern
that if parents need to have the creationism to be included in the curriculum, why don’t the parents send
their kids to the Sunday school. Then I just want to raise the similar question
to the evolutionist: what if you were born from a
poor family and at the same time you had a strong belief will you be able to pay the tuition in the private schools?
c.
Evolution is contradicted with the
teaching of religion
The basic assumption of the evolutionary theory is that no Supernatural
Being ever been involved in this universe. They theocratized that there is no
creator, therefore, there is no creation.
They only believe that the universes including human being are as results of
evolution. It means that this teaching really contradicted with the teaching of
religion, which therefore will impact the parents’ objection if their children
are taught something which contradicts
with their belief at home.
In addition, the teaching of
evolution especially the origin and human being is
contradicted with the Abrahamic religions: Islam, Jews, and Christian. In Islam,
as stated in the Qur’an, man is created by the God
and is not by the evolution by themselves.
“Verily We created man from a product of wet earth; then
placed him as a drop (of seed) in
a safe lodging; then We fashioned the drop into a clot, then We fashioned the
clot into a little lump, then We fashioned the little lump into bones, then
clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it another creation. So blessed
be Allah, the Best of Creators!” [23:12-14]
“It is
He Who has created you from dust then from a sperm-drop, then from a leech-like
clot; then does he get you out (into the light) as a child: then lets you (grow
and) reach your age of full strength; then lets you become old,- though of you
there are some who die before;- and lets you reach a term appointed; in order
that you may learn wisdom.” [40:67]
The reference of dust in the Quran [40:67], is for the first human
being, prophet Adam. And then for the whole human being human is created from
the sperm-drop (biological process).
Similar to the Quran, the Bible
also mentioned that God created man:
“Then the LORD
God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the
breath of life and the man became a
living being”. (Geneses 2:7).
In addition, in the Torah, the Jewish agree that the humankind was
created on the sixth day of the creation
of the universe:
In the sixth
day, were created all the other animals, large and small, those that walk and
those that creep or crawl on the earth. And towards the end of the sixth day,
G-d put a divine soul into a body which He made of earth and clay. This was the
human.
The Quran, the Bible, and the Torah, were already existed far before we
discovered ultrasound and other sophisticated technologies. Then the question is if these holy books were
not the book of God, then who is the human being at that time who could create
a narrative story which then proven by the technology? Which are similar to
each other’s: the first human (Adam) were created from the clay/dust.
The quotes of the verses above are
actually answering the doubt (Pennock, 2002; & Sobber, 2009) that if we
teach creationism, what religion should we used as an approach. In fact, these three Abrahamic religions do not
conflict each other if it comes to the
creation. These three majority religions in the world agree that men are
created by God. I will also criticize the Sobber (2009) argument that the
notion of God creates the organism is invalid, but then why there are three
religions have the same answers of the creation of human being; while that three religion were not come at the same
time. At that time, there were not any technologies that were able to
communicate these three different holy books. Were these three holy books
coincident? The answers is NO, because
God who created the organisms and human beings granted these holy books as the
guidance for the human beings.
My Alternative
Solution towards the Debates of the Teaching Creationism vs. Evolution in the Public
schools: Teach both
Coming
from a country in which religion is taught in school, I see that teaching
creationism is important to be taught in the USA or other countries as well. If
it is not taught through religion subject, at least it can be included in the
Science subject in order to balance the theory of evolution in which for some
reasons contradict with the teaching of religion (almost all religion, oppose
the theory that human is not created by God, rather it was from the evolution
of the Apes). This is because once again, it is not fair for a student to study
a theory or a thought that are coming from one single angel. This will also
avoid the students’ misperception when they at home know their parents did not
believe in evolution.
a. Autonomy
As free and equal citizens, the term autonomy is deemed to be important
notion. The term autonomy in here
suggests that a person in the original position would have an interest in
becoming familiar with different conceptions of the good. That is, as an autonomous
person, she/he would want to be adequately be presented with alternatives in
their most compelling forms (Warnick, 2009). Therefore, if a school teaches
evolution theory, at the same time the school needs to also provide the other
alternative theory: creationism, or vice versa. In addition, Brighouse (2006)
argued that students need to receive a serious advocacy of different
perspectives in the classroom.
b.
Fairness
Once again, It would be fair that
students should hear “both sides” if there are two major debates, in this case, creationism and evolution theory. Given
the fact that, nearly two-thirds of
Americans believe that creationism should be thought alongside evolution
(Warnick, 2009), thus, teaching creationism in the classroom is imperative. On
his paper, Warnick (2009) quote an editorial essay that essentially the
proponents of evolution need to realize that not everyone is convinced with the
theory of evolution whom they are also taxpayers, and therefore should have the
same right in the curriculum.
Conclusion
Given the arguments and rationales above,
it is time to give back the students’ right of what they need to be learned at school. This paper does not request the abolition of the evolution theory, nor
to delete the word evolution from the biology textbook.
This paper, however, argues that students
need to be provided equal materials which
I believe important for their future. While evolutionist in some cases failed
to proof that their theory is a fact, thus, the creationism needs to be given equal weight to evolution in
order to give some answers that evolution cannot answer.
That said, for the sake of curricular fairness, both evolution and
creationism should be presented on the table. Let students with their critical
thinking criticize and connect with their daily life. The teachers and schools
are therefore functioned as the facilitator of knowledge. As the customers, let
parents and students decide which knowledge they want to buy from the school.
Reference
Ayala, F.J.
(2006). Evolution vs creationism. Essay Reviews. History and Philosophy of the
Life Sciences. Vol 28(1), p. 71-82.
Berkman, M., &
Plutzer, E. (2010). Evolution, creationism, and the battle to control America’s classrooms.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Burtt, Brian.
(2008). Deliberative democracy and intelligent design, the ruling in Kitzmiller
& Dover. Theory and Research in
Education. Vol 6(1). 95-105.
Brighouse, Harry.
(2006). On education. Routledge, New
York.
Forrest, B.
(2007). Understanding the intelligent design creationist movement its true
nature and goals. The Center for Inquiry
and Office of Public Policy.
Gutmann, A.
(1987). Democratic education.
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Pennock, R.T.
(2008). Should creationism be taught in the public schools? Science & Education. Volume 2.
111-133.
Poole, Michael.
(2008). Creationism, intelligent design and science education. SSR. Vol 90(30) p. 123-129.
Reiss, M. (2008)
Science classroom should tackle creationism and intelligent design. The Guardian. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism
Sobber, Elliott. (2009).
Core questions in philosophy: A text with readings (5th edition).
Pearson Education: New Jersey.
Warnick, B.R.
(2009). Evolution, creationism, and fairness: Equal time in the biology
classroom? Philosophy of Education.
p. 305-313.
Comments