arguments for teaching creationism
Creationism in schools: an unethical approach
http://www.defendingthetruth.com/articles/10637-creationism-schools-unethical-approach.html
Science and religion have always been seemingly at odds with others. Of the theories set forth by Galileo arguments regarding medical ethics Today, science and religion have taken opposite sides. The debate over whether or not creationism and intelligent design should be taught in schools is an example. These theories without foundation in reality are forced to schools as a strategy of "teaching the controversy." In this trial, it will be demonstrated creationist thinking that not only runs counter to scientific theory, but also the legal and educational standards of the population the school system.
Many creationists and evolutionists both advocate "teaching the controversy" for the simple reason of a fair and balanced education, but the concept is incorrect. For example, one does not support the teaching of Holocaust revisionism or 9 / 11 conspiracy theories in the school as "alternative views" because you can not let absurd enter the classroom (Scott 3). In perhaps the most well known and celebrated for rebuttal, Bobby Henderson, 25, science student age, wrote a letter to the Kansas State Board of Education (which had recently adopted the teaching of "alternatives" to evolution), which approved the decision but expressed concern about whether or not their views be represented. He explained that he believed that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe in a false religion and proceeded to send a crude diagram shows the history of the creation of the new religion, clearly labeled as "Pastafarianism." Through this absurd argument shows that one can not teach well all the alternatives, so that only the more religiously viewpoint neutral evolution, is acceptable (Boxer 1). It is impossible to accommodate all views in a program of study in schools, but it is logical to use the point of view he remained fundamentally neutral beliefs.
Beyond that, theories such as creationism are simply inappropriate in an educational setting. First, the First Amendment the United States Constitution was intended to establish a purely secular government and therefore, a religiously neutral educational environment. By teaching the creationist thought, the principle is violated separation of church and state. In the case of Edwards v. Aguillard the Supreme Court reinforced this position, a decision that creationism was a religious concept and its teaching in schools is unconstitutional (NSTA 4). Worse, if two ideas, it blurs the line between reality and fiction. Much of what is considered legitimate in the eyes of the creationists is highly suspect and has not been proved, if not flat wrong. If taught in the classroom, students are in great disadvantage. Essentially, they are fed with lies disguised as truth. As such, they will be able to determine the difference between the scientific facts of pseudoscience (AAAS 4). Also, do not learn an adequate amount of information concerning the facts. Time devoted to learning and intelligent design creationism is not time to learn evolution. It is also the time devoted to the ideas in direct contrast to everything that science is to be addressed further. On a practical level, Students will not be prepared for standardized tests, entrance examinations for universities and higher education, which everyone agrees on the validity of evolutionary thought (Scott 2). The classroom is a place of learning the truth, which means that creationism is not the issue.
Perhaps the most easy to illustrate the fallacy of allowing these theories in schools is the fallacy of the theories themselves. First, the scientific consensus is that evolution is a fact and that the only debate is not about whether or not it happens, but how it happens (AAAS 2). Intelligent design simply is not science at all. Essentially, intelligent design is the idea that there are complexities in nature that can not be attributed to chance and, therefore, are the product of a "first cause", which is equivalent to a supreme being, who had the mental capacity to design everything. Not been tested and no evidence supporting intelligent design. Nor is the scientific question in nature, but rather philosophical. As such, even if placed in scientific terms, the label "theory" is a misnomer for intelligent design. Rather, it is better to call it as a hypothesis, which is essentially a wild guess who still has not been substantiated with facts. Once you have made sufficient to support, then a theory. Similarly, the secular definition of "theory" does not apply to the scientific definition. In layman's terms, a theory is the same as an assumption or inference. In a scientific context, however, theories are just ideas that are unified and supported by sufficient evidence to suggest not, but rather to demonstrate the validity (AAAS 2). Creationism itself is the most common biblical creationism, goes against the scientific method. Science is about explaining the world in purely empirical, without resorting to mysticism or superstition. According scientific theory, if you can tell it's there, you can explain how and why it exists. (Scott 2) Creationism is fundamentally flawed perversion the scientific process. First, creationism uses a hypothesis assumes the existence of an intelligent designer in question, which is essentially a hypothesis to the validity of a fact, the worst that can make any scientist and an action that automatically discredit any theory in any scientific community. It is a matter of science but of religion is something one must remain agnostic as to the scientific process. The religious conviction is rather a matter of personal choice, but is not applicable to the scientific process. Second, the thinkers creationists selectively work putting together a mosaic of ideas, both tested and untested, to support their position and ignore what is going against. This cherry picking is far from satisfactory when the unified theories based on the pre-selected data is placed on a critical review. Third, and perhaps most importantly, creationism does not have the intellectual honesty of the scientific process. The objective of science is constantly changing theories based on the discovery and verification of new evidence. As such, scientific thinking improves with time. Creationism aims to test a notion presupposes that seems simply a fact. There is no critical analysis of creationist circles and no new hypotheses, because the hypotheses that have been given to the validity of a scientific law and can not be deviated from (NSTA 3-4). In essence, creationism and intelligent design can not be taught in science classes simply because they do not qualify as science in the sense of the word.
The two theories "of creationism and intelligent design are totally inadequate in the classroom. They do not qualify as science, not confirmed, the defeat of the effects of separation between church and state, creating an unfair bias for Christianity, and not to encourage intellectual honesty. They are not acceptable "alternatives" to evolution, and not fulfill the basic purpose of education as an institution that promotes critical thinking and independent reasoning. If you want to follow their own religious beliefs, then that is fine because it is their business, but have neither the authority nor the right to carry their beliefs into the public sphere, pushing as an equal to scientific fact.
Works Cited
America Academy for the Advancement of Science. "Intelligent design is not scientific." World Religions. 2006. Opposing Views of the series. OpposingViewpointsResourceCenter. Gale Group databases. Southern School ClarkstownHigh Lib, NY. May 15, 2007. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?vrsn=230&slb=SU&locID=win16990rpa&srchtp=basi c & c = 1 & ste = 17 & TBST ts_basic = & tab = 1 & TXB = smart + + is + D ESIGN scientific and DocNum = X3010438219 & no = 1 & ONT BC = 1
Boxer, Sarah. "But there Intelligent Spaghetti Out There?" The New York Times. August 29, 2005. The New York Times. May 16, 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/29/arts/design/29mons.html?ex=1179460800&en=6262e34a96254bc3&ei=5 070
Eugenie Scott, Leo interviewed by Lynn. "Creationism should not be included in science curricula." Education. 2000. Opposing Views of the series. Oppose ViewpointsResourceCenter. Gale Group databases. Southern School ClarkstownHigh Lib, NY. May 15, 2007. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?vrsn=230&slb=SU&locID=win16990rpa&srchtp=basi c & c = 4 & ste = 17 & TBST ts_basic = & tab = 1 & d = & Creationism TXB X3010129231 ocNum = & no = 0 & bConts = 79
National Science Teachers Association. "Creationism should be excluded from courses. Education. Opposing Views of the series. Oppose ViewpointsResourceCenter. Gale Group databases. Southern School ClarkstownHigh Lib, NY. May 15, 2007. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?vrsn=230&slb=SU&locID=win16990rpa&srchtp=basi c & c = 1 & ste = 17 & TBST ts_basic = & tab = 1 & TXB = creationism + s + be + excluded EBE & DocNum = & no = X3010129260 1 & bConts = 1
About the Author
Intelligent Design - The Truth behind the design