C'est ce qu'elle a dit !

Wrote this for a college class. The last 2 paragraphs kinda bite, but I was so fed up with writing that I figured it was good enough.

Since the early 1900’s the debate has persisted on whether or not to teach creationism in public school science classes. Though the scientific theory of evolution remains a predominant part of the curriculum, it has been reported that, “creationism continues to be part of approximately one-fourth of high-school biology classes” (Moore, Cotner 4.) These findings have been quite unsettling to numerous scientific organizations and have defied state science-education guidelines (Moore, Cotner 4.) Despite logical and legal opposition, the range of arguments for creationism have dubiously clung from first amendment rights to (falsely) redefining science in order to include support for religious belief. From the studies I have conducted, not a single argument for teaching creationism in school has produced any logical or legal vindication. In view of the fact that creationism is not a scientific theory, and that its primarily blatant interference with the establishment clause displays the absence of legal justification, the arguments for creationism crumble under these simple refutations. In light of these facts, I have concluded that creationism has no place in our public school science classes.

The first and most obvious of reasons to omit Creation “theory” from science class is that creationism, by definition, is not a scientific theory but a religious belief. Before we discus creationism’s position in science lets first understand the definition of religion and science. In the New Oxford American Dictionary, religion is defined as, “The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.” In contrast, by the same dictionary, science is defined as, “The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.” Now, in order for a theory to be recognized as science it must be able to adhere to a set of five guidelines. These guide lines, compiled by the Darwinian philosopher Michael Ruse, state that, “for a theory to achieve scientific status it must be: Guided by natural law, explanatory by natural law, testable against the empirical world, tentative and falsifiable”(DeWolf 4.) By virtue of these criteria, it is incontestable that creationism does not qualify as a science. For it is the Judeo-Christian creation-story that is pushed on our schools the most, I will analyze the Bible passage, Genesis 1, to validate this conclusion. According to Genesis 1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” further providing us only with vague explanations of how he did this, such as, “And God said, ‘Let there be….’” With no observed or even tangible evidence as to how a God could create the world, let alone exist, proves that the very principle of such a supernatural-conjuring could never be testable against the empirical world. Also, because creationism is accepted as a belief, it cannot be falsifiable. Since a belief is the unwavering embrace of an ideology with its only elucidation needing to be faith, a believer would not require verifiable evidence for them to feel that their ideology is fact. Knowing this, we can gather that because the belief can never be accepted as wrong by the believer, creationism is neither tentative or falsifiable. Through the inability to comply with the five scientific criteria, it can be concluded that, “creationism might be true, but it could never qualify as science” (DeWolf 5.)

The other reason in which creationism does not belong in the public school science curriculum is that it lacks legal back-up. Throughout the twentieth century, this issue has continued to push for the demarcation of laws in court. Creationists claim that banning creationism from school is an infringement on the first amendment right to the free exercise of religion. This in fact not true, for if you read the first amendment, it clearly states in the Establishment Clause that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” For instance, in the 1990 court case, Webster v. Lenox School District, Webster, a biology teacher, was prohibited from teaching creationism in class. In retaliation, Webster brought the claim that his freedom of speech was being violated to the district court, but the results did not come in his favor and the decision was further upheld by the Circuit Court of Appeals. The court claimed that including creationism would be a form of religious advocacy and thus unconstitutional (National Center for Science Education 2.) Again and again similar cases have popped up, and fortunately in most, the law had continues to be upheld.

It is often the defense of creationists that the law is committing a form of persecution on their beliefs. But how can that be? Science and the law have not at all claimed that the theory of creation is false, or have hindered their right to practice their beliefs. These factors have only protected the rights and restrictions presented to us as citizens of this country.