"When Science Meets God: Teaching Creation and Evolution in America’s Public Schools"

When Science Meets God:
> Teaching Creation and Evolution in America&rsquo;s Public Schools<font>

 In today’s black-and-white world, the debate over the teaching of evolution and creation in public schools has never been settled.  On each side, people typically renounce all other origin theories in favor of their own view.  Their exclusive positions often carry over to their philosophies on what should be taught in schools, leading to extensive conflict between students, parents, teachers, and administrators. Even when exclusivity is not called for, the prejudices of each side are evident, with Evolutionists presenting creation stories only to highlight their absurdity and Creationists asking that equal time be given to creation as to evolution, a much more detailed theory, in the public school curriculum.  In my paper I will examine these prevailing ideas and propose a compromising solution to the debate.

The most common view of the origin of life in the scientific world is the theory of evolution.  This theory, developed and made known by Charles Darwin in the mid-nineteenth century, has become a foundation of modern science, and is taught in biology classes across America. Students learn about evolutionary principles like natural selection and the spontaneous generation of life and how these ideas are applied. Since the historic Scopes trial in 1925, evolution has become such an integral part of both science and science education that few can imagine any other option to explain the existence of the universe and the life found in it.  Some, in fact, want evolution to be the only origin theory that is taught in public schools. According to a Gallup poll quoted by ABC News in 1999, 29% of Americans are opposed to the idea of teaching Creationism along with evolution (Chang). While some of this number may include those who want to see only Creationism taught, it is probable that the majority of these responses come from those who want to see only evolution in schools.

One reason for teaching only evolution is the belief that mentioning Creationism will violate the “separation of church and state” clause of the Constitution, which says that the state will not impose one specific religion on its people.  This fear arises from the fact that Creationism is associated with the Christian idea that God created the universe and all life on earth as recorded in the book of Genesis. However, Christianity is not the only religion that subscribes to the idea of a superior being creating life on earth; Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, and nearly every other religion reject the theory of evolution in favor of a supernatural creation story (Various).  If Creationism is defined as the belief in a supernatural creator, though not necessarily the Christian God, schools teaching this form of Creationism are not promoting one religion over another.  On the other hand, some argue that presenting evolution is in fact bringing some sort of religion into the classroom.  Charles Haynes quotes Carl Sagan as saying, “the universe is all there was, all there is, and all there ever will be,” and comments that Sagan “was making a faith statement – not a scientific observation” (“ ‘Teaching’ ”).  Dr. Harold Urey, a Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry, said, "All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere.  We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did" (qtd. in Anointed-One.net).  One definition for a religion is “a particular system of faith and worship” (“Religion”). Darwinism, according to Haynes and Urey, certainly falls under this category.  Evolution and creation, then, are equally fit or unfit for presentation in public schools and should be treated this way.

On the other side of the origin theory debate from those who favor evolution sit the fundamentalist Christians. This group typically leans toward the complete rejection of Darwinian evolution and a return to Bible-centered creation as described in the book of Genesis, even in the public school classroom.  Prior to Darwin, and for some years after his theory was published, Biblical Creationism was the only accepted explanation for life; anything contradictory was considered heretical in the eyes of both the church and America’s public schools. Several states, including Oklahoma, Florida, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Arkansas, enacted anti-evolutionary laws in the 1920s, prohibiting the teaching of anything other than biblical creationism in schools (Elsberry).  These laws were all repealed years ago, yet a surprising number people who believe in Biblical creation would still prefer to see evolution entirely eliminated from the public school curriculum and replaced by Creationism. According to the Gallup poll mentioned in Kenneth Chang’s article, 40% of Americans favor teaching Creationism instead of evolution in public schools.

An alternate view held by many compromise-seeking Creationists proposes that equal time be given to the evolutionary theory and the Biblical account of creation.  This proposal would prevent religious students from feeling that evolution is being forced on them and allow all students to see that evolution is not universally accepted.  It would also open up the classroom for debate about these opposing views.  This idea is an improvement over the exclusive views previously mentioned, but it still has several problems.  First, the equal time view focuses only on Biblical creation and Darwinian evolution, neglecting to mention the many other beliefs that exist within the United States and around the world.  Even within the Christian community, variations on the Creationism exist, from the fundamentalist six-day creation to the idea of theistic evolution.  Second, scientific support for creationism is found predominantly in the faults of the Evolutionary theory, rather than in direct evidence that a supernatural creation occurred.    Indeed, the National Academy of Sciences uses this fact to support the teaching of evolution, saying that “only evolution should be taught in science classes because it is the only scientific explanation of why the universe is the way it is today” (qtd. in Matthews 404).  Because a limited amount of time is available for science classes, and evolution has a more scientific base than Creationism, it is impractical to limit the time students can spend learning about the ideas behind evolution simply to give Creationism equal classroom time.

The failures of each of these approaches to teaching about the origins of the world are obvious. On each side, people make the mistake of viewing the opposing belief through their own preconceived worldviews and prejudices and failing to thoroughly evaluate each theory.  Although it is important to hold to one’s own beliefs, it is also necessary to remain open to solid evidence on the contrary.  This idea is the foundation for my philosophy on science education in the American public school.

Because of the nature of our country, American public schools are filled with diversity.  This diversity is not found only in nationality, but in religious background, education level, family background and socioeconomic background. Each of these factors influences children and the beliefs they bring to the science classroom.  While educational standards and scientific beliefs generally dictate the curriculum, science teachers must acknowledge the varied backgrounds students come from in order to effectively teach each student.  This principle applies in all areas of science, but especially with respect to evolution and religious background.  According to a 1997 Gallup poll, 44% of adults in the United States believe God created humans within the last 10,000 years, 39% believe God guided the process of evolution, and only 10% believe that evolution occurred without God’s help (qtd. in Chang).  If this data is representative of the beliefs of students in American public schools, it is obvious that diversity exists, and science teachers must be respectful of that diversity, especially when it relates to students’ religious convictions. 

Teachers cannot, however, simply disregard evolution, a theory that permeates much of modern biology.  This theory is important for students to learn about because of its many valuable applications, such as classifying organisms, understanding how different species are related to one another, and learning more about the human species through closely related animals.  Evolution provides us with understanding about the way the world works, but often appears to conflict with religious beliefs.  Because of this, teachers need to be sensitive to students’ beliefs, but encourage discussion and debate among the students.  The evidence both for and against Darwinian evolution should be presented and discussed, just as with any other scientific theory.  Teachers should also emphasize the fact that it is not necessary to discard one’s religion in order to accept the basic tenets of evolution.  The theory of Intelligent Design grasps this idea, asserting that God, or another higher being, used the processes of evolution to create the world as we know it today.

Although this approach seems to place considerable emphasis on religion, no specific religious beliefs need to be emphasized over any others.  The emphasis is instead placed on the students and their beliefs, rather than merely focusing on curricular requirements governing evolution and Biblical creation.  In addition, a study by Dorothy Matthews suggests that consideration by the teacher for students’ beliefs and a chance to explore those beliefs actually makes students more receptive to new ideas (404, 408).  Students whose religious beliefs are ignored or criticized are unlikely to consider any other ideas with an open mind, and are therefore unable to evaluate their own beliefs.  This approach to origin theory education, then, focuses on student decision-making, not on the promotion of religion. Whether the teacher believes in creation, evolution, intelligent design, or some other theory on the origin of the world, it is in the best interest of the teacher and the student to examine all sides, and allow each individual the freedom to choose his or her own belief.

The origin of the world is a constantly debated topic, and science teachers are faced with the challenging task of meeting curricular requirements, community expectations, and parental approval.  They must also encourage students to learn and develop their own beliefs about this difficult issue.  This can be done only through sensitivity and respect for students’ beliefs and accurate presentation of scientific information.  These elements are key in allowing students the opportunity critically evaluate their beliefs and leave the classroom with a solid understanding of the world around them.

Works Cited
> Anointed-One.net. 12 Dec. 2002 &lt;<a href="http:/www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html">http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html>.
> Chang, Kenneth. &quot;Evolutionary Beliefs.&quot;&nbsp; ABC News 1999 &nbsp;&lt;<a href="http:/abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolutionviews990816.html">http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolutionviews990816.html>.
> Elsberry, Wesley R.&nbsp; &quot;Anti-Evolution and the Law.&quot;&nbsp; 3 April 2001. Antievolution: The Critic's Resource. 12 Dec. 2002. &lt;<a href="http:/www.antievolution.org/topics/law/">http://www.antievolution.org/topics/law/>.
> Haynes, Charles. &quot;Stop the Fighting: Use 'Creation-Evolution' Conflict as Teaching Tool.&quot;&nbsp; Freedom Forum 14 April 2002 &lt;<a href="http:/www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16053">http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16053>.
> Haynes, Charles.&nbsp; &quot; 'Teaching the Controversy' Over Evolution Could Be Disastrous.&quot;&nbsp; Freedom Forum 27 Oct. 2002 &lt;<a href="http:/www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=17157">http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=17157>.
> Matthews, Dorothy.&nbsp; &quot;Effect of a Curriculum Containing Creation Stories on Attitudes about Evolution.&quot;&nbsp; The American Biology Teacher 63&nbsp; (2001): 404-409. <br> "Recent Evolution/Creation Science Conflicts In U.S. Schools." 31 Oct. 2001.  Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. 12 Dec. 2002 <http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_school.htm>.
> &quot;Religion.&quot; The Oxford English Reference Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1996.<br> "Various Faith Group's Beliefs About Evolution and Creation." 31 July 2002.  Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. 12 Dec. 2002 <http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_denom.htm>.